Mapping and Monitoring Informal Settlements Using RS Technologies: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jason Zhu and Version 1 by Paidamwoyo Mhangara.

Research on the detection of informal settlements has increased sin the past three decades ce 1990s owing to the availability of high- to very-high-spatial-resolution satellite imagery. The achievement of development goals, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, requires access to up-to-date information on informal settlements. This review provides an overview of studies that used object-based image analysis (OBIA) techniques to detect informal settlements using remotely sensed data. 

  • OBIA
  • informal settlements
  • high-spatial-resolution images

1. OBIA Processing Steps

The first step in OBIA is image segmentation. This process partitions the image into meaningful objects used in classification or interpretation. OBIA was introduced around 2000 and implemented using software like Trimble eCognition. The multiresolution segmentation process is the most common image segmentation technique used in informal settlement detection [15][1]. One of the time-consuming tasks in image segmentation is the determination of the scale parameters that will produce image objects that represent the desired classes [24][2]. The scale parameter is an essential variable in image segmentation, as it determines the heterogeneity and size of the segmented objects [28][3]. The higher the scale parameter is, the higher the degree of heterogeneity of the object will be, resulting in larger image objects. Most studies have used a trial-and-error process to determine the scale parameter that would provide the required objects [21,26,34,35][4][5][6][7]. This supervised segmentation method requires the user to inspect the segmentation results using reference data or local knowledge. The parameters are then fine-tuned until the desired image objects are achieved.
The scale parameter remains a notable problem in the transferability of OBIA classification techniques. The transfer of image segmentation parameters from one sensor to another requires the parameters to be fine-tuned [27][8]. Reference data such as road or rail data have been used during the segmentation process to improve the boundaries of the resulting image object [35][7]. Some researchers have employed the Estimation of the Scale Parameter [30][9] to determine the scale parameter in order to segment informal settlement objects [32,36][10][11]. Several studies have used two segmentation levels to detect informal settlements [21,34,35][4][6][7]. This usually involves the segmentation of larger image objects to represent non-built-up versus built-up areas. In contrast, the second level uses higher scale values to create informal and formal land use objects used as sub-objects to distinguish informal settlements from formal settlements. The use of one segmentation level is observed when spectral-based features alone are used for the classification of informal settlements [35][7].
The availability of image-processing platforms such as Google Earth Engine provides opportunities to implement other segmentation methods, such as Simple Non-Iterative Clustering, which has been successful in segmenting informal settlement image objects from medium-spatial-resolution optical images and SAR [37][12]. Grid-based segmentation approaches are also used to create images in informal settlement detection [38,39][13][14].
Image classification in OBIA is usually performed using rulesets. Expert knowledge is required to generate these rulesets. The most challenging task during the mapping of informal settlements using OBIA is the translation of the characteristics of informal settlements into robust indicators that can be used across the globe during classification [31,40][15][16]. A Generic Slum Ontology (GSO) was developed to define generic indicators of informal settlements that can be used globally to detect informal settlements using remotely sensed data [40][16]. The GSO is based on the built morphology of informal settlements on three spatial levels, i.e., environment, settlement and object. The following subsections evaluate informal settlement indicators and OBIA techniques on these three spatial levels.

2. Detection of Informal Settlements Using Object-Level Indicators

Several studies have investigated using OBIA techniques to detect informal settlements [15,21,22,27][1][4][8][17]. The rulesets used for detecting informal settlements vary in terms of complexity from one area to another, depending on the ontology of the informal settlements. The object-level indicators tested or used to detect informal settlements include the tone and shape characteristics of dwelling structures [21,36][4][11]. The shape characteristics that are used serve to detect informal settlements’ size and the simplicity of their roof structures. The dwelling structures in informal settlements are usually smaller [31,36,41][11][15][18] and more irregular in shape [36][11] than formal structures.
The roofs of dwelling structures in informal settlements can be constructed from a wide range of materials, such as iron, plastic sheets, wooden boards or asbestos [36][11] and a combination of clothes, wood and straw [42,43][19][20]. Image features have been investigated to distinguish the tone and brightness of dwelling structures in formal settlements. Tone measures the intensity of the bands of the image. The use of measurements for the tone of the roofs of dwelling structures in informal settlements using high-spatial-resolution imagery alone is insufficient in detecting informal settlements [24][2]. This is due to spectral confusion between the dwelling roofs and the surrounding surfaces [24][2]. The studies investigating the use of shape characteristics of dwelling structures have achieved poor accuracies of around 2–65% [21,31,36][4][11][15].

3. Detection of Informal Settlement Using Settlement-Level Indicators

Settlement-level indicators are physical characteristics of informal settlements that describe the overall shape, form or density of the respective settlement [40][16]. These indicators include the relative density of building structures and the absence of regular road networks and vegetation. Further indicators are the lacunarity and orientation of built structures [40][16]. The density of structures in unformal settlements can vary from one settlement to another. In addition, the density of the structures can vary depending on the developmental stage of the informal settlement, i.e., in infancy, consolidation or maturity [43][20]. Several studies in the literature have been conducted on medium- to high-density informal settlements [21,22,27,35][4][7][8][17].
The measurement of the GLCM is used to analyze the occurrence of pairs of pixels with specific values and a specific spatial relationship [44][21]. The GLCM textural measurements are the image features commonly explored, investigated or used for informal settlement detection in areas with medium- to high-density building structures, from high- to very-high-spatial-resolution imagery [26,34,35,39,45][5][6][7][14][22]. The window size used during the texture analysis and the spatial relationship analysis can affect the detection of informal settlements [26,34][5][6]. The success of these GLCM features in detecting settlements varies from one area to another depending on the morphology of the settlement, the surrounding land use features and the developmental stage of the settlements [34,35][6][7]. The integration of GLCM and other features, such as vegetation indices, has been proven to increase the quality of the results [26][5].
Several studies have attempted to detect informal settlements by analyzing the presence or morphology of land use features. A lack of vegetation is one of the characteristics of informal settlements that have been investigated [15][1]. This indicator is assessed using vegetation indices such as the Normalized Differential Vegetation Index (NDVI). The NDVI quantifies vegetation cover and has been used to classify land use and land cover features [46][23]. Informal settlements typically have lower vegetation cover than formal settlements [21,26,35,47][4][5][7][24]. This indicator is mainly used with other indicators, such as high building density, to detect informal settlements. Even though lack of vegetation could be used as an indicator during informal settlement detection, studies that assess vegetation cover and the biophysical characteristics of informal settlements have not been conducted. Understanding the biophysical characteristics and environmental conditions could help to manage the development of a measure aiming to improve the resilience and health of people living in informal settlements.
The use of lacunarity to detect informal settlements has been investigated in several studies [25,48,49][25][26][27]. Lacunarity is a measure of the deviation of geometric objects which quantifies the spatial heterogeneity of an object [48][26]. Formal settlements are expected to have higher lacunarity values, whereas informal settlements have lower values [25]. The lacunarity values of informal settlements depend on the developmental stage and density of the settlements [49][27].
Line detection algorithms such as Canny edge have been used to measure lacunarity in the detection of informal settlements [25,49,50][25][27][28]. In OBIA, lacunarity is also calculated by assessing the relative distance of building structures from vacant land [35][7]. The effectiveness of lacunarity in detecting informal settlements requires highly accurate informal settlement land use features. The integration of ancillary data available from platforms such as OpenStreetMap can potentially improve the detection of informal settlements.
Informal settlements are characterized by organic and irregular road networks or paths [51][29]. Only a limited number of studies have integrated the detection of road networks in distinguishing informal from formal settlements [26,52,53][5][30][31]. The geometric characteristics of informal settlement land use features have been investigated using the asymmetry of sub-objects [21,38][4][13]. Informal settlements tend to have a lower asymmetry of sub-object values owing to the complex nature of land use features in informal settlements. The asymmetry of sub-objects perform better in detecting informal settlements than the use of the area or density of sub-objects [38][13]. This may be attributed to the fact that the assessment of the area and density of sub-objects depends on the accuracy of the segmentation results of building structures and land use features in informal settlements [54][32].

4. Detection of Informal Settlement Using Environment-Level Indicators

The detection of informal settlements using environment-level characteristics has not been thoroughly investigated. Informal settlements are primarily developed on vacant land in undesirable locations close to rivers or services, in low-lying areas or on steep slopes. Areas prone to environmental disasters may also be used for informal settlements [36,40][11][16]. Some studies have investigated the location characteristics of informal settlements using ancillary data [55,56,57,58,59][33][34][35][36][37]. The integration of location characteristics such as proximity to rivers, roads or railway lines in the OBIA classification process has been proven to enhance the detection of informal settlements [36,60][11][38].

5. Temporal Analysis of Informal Settlement Extent

Understanding informal settlements can help authorities to better manage the development of informal settlements and urbanization in general. Even though several studies have investigated the detection of informal settlements using satellite images, limited studies have focused on analyzing informal settlement growth [33,36,38,59,61,62,63][11][13][37][39][40][41][42]. The accuracy of post-classification-based change detection greatly depends on the accuracy of the classification results. In OBIA, the detection process’s or ruleset’s transferability remains challenging [36][11]. Machine-learning-based change detection offers a better solution for informal settlement detection [63][42]. The information assessed in change detection studies has mainly focused on the extent of settlements. The availability of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) provides an opportunity to assess building structure growth or changes in informal settlements [64][43].

6. Informal Settlement Mapping Using UAVs

The use of 3D information for detecting building structures in informal settlements using UAVs, unmanned aerial systems or drones has been an area of interest among researchers in recent years. UAV technology can acquire ultra-high-spatial-resolution images, 3D point clouds, detailed Digital Surface Models and Digital Elevation Models [65][44]. This technology also provides flexibility in the selection of spatial and revisit times based on the information requirements of the project [66][45]. The integration of 2D and 3D information heights generated from UAV products has been proven to provide more accurate results than pixel-based classification [67][46]. The mapping of land use features in informal settlements (including building structures through integrating 2D and 3D information provided by UAV technology) produces the detailed information required to support many applications, including planning for the upgrading of slums [67][46].
UAV products have also been used to classify roofs according to the roof materials and building heights, providing valuable information that can be used during spatial planning and as an indicator for classifying informal versus formal settlements [68][47]. The assessment of land use features in informal settlements using UAV image products is limited to smaller geographic areas [69][48]; for city-wide informal settlement mapping, high-spatial-resolution images are required. In contrast, UAV technology is suitable for the localized assessment of features in informal settlements to support specific projects, such as upgrade projects [70][49].
The capacity of UAVs to assess the morphology of building structures for determining fire disaster risk in informal settlements has been demonstrated [71][50]. Point cloud data used to create a 3D model of the building structure have been investigated to support several applications, including informal settlement upgrades [72][51]. Furthermore, multitemporal UAV products have successfully identified upgraded dwelling structures in informal settlements [64][43]. It has been shown that using UAV products to detect features in informal settlements provides classification accuracies of 90% or higher [64][43].

7. Studying the Morphology of Informal Settlements Using Landscape Metrics

The research aiming to distinguish informal settlements from formal settlements using landscape metrics is new. A recent study in China successfully distinguished urban villages from formal areas with higher accuracy in two cities using patch and landscape metrics [73][52]. The study of the spatial patterns of informal settlement structures using landscape patterns has also received limited attention [58,71][36][50]. Study of the spatial patterns of informal settlements can provide information with which to better understand the configurations of settlements and, hence, aid in planning services. Furthermore, integrating spatial patterns with other information types, such as disaster occurrence, can help to identify areas at risk of such events [71][50].

8. Mapping of Informal Settlement Land Use Features

Understanding the built environments of informal settlements is essential for providing primary and emergency services. Research on the high- to very-high-spatial-resolution extraction of building structures in informal settlements has been an area of interest for many scholars and researchers in the past two decades [74,75][53][54]. This was made possible by the launch of satellites such as IKONOS, QuickBird and Worldview. The quantification of building structures provides information required to estimate population size and facilitates the provision of health and other essential services, such as emergency response services (including fire and disaster management). The extraction of building structures from high-spatial-resolution imagery is a complex process owing to the size and heterogeneity of the surrounding land use features, such as roads and open spaces.
Limited studies have investigated the extraction of roads in informal settlements, yet these are essential infrastructure, as they provide transportation and emergency service access. The detection of road features in informal settlements is challenging, as roads in informal settlements have similar physical characteristics compared to other land use features when using high-spatial-resolution satellite imagery [76][55].

References

  1. Kuffer, M.; Pfeffer, K.; Sliuzas, R. Slums from Space-15 Years of Slum Mapping Using Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 455.
  2. Myint, S.W.; Gober, P.; Brazel, A.; Grossman-Clarke, S.; Weng, Q. Per-Pixel vs. Object-Based Classification of Urban Land Cover Extraction Using High Spatial Resolution Imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 1145–1161.
  3. Baatz, M. Multi Resolution Segmentation: An Optimum Approach for High Quality Multi Scale Image Segmentation. In Beutrage zum AGIT-Symposium; Salzburg: Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 12–23.
  4. Hofmann, P. Detecting Informal Settlements from IKONOS Image Data Using Methods of Object Oriented Image Analysis-an Example from Cape Town South Africa. Jürgens CEd Remote Sens. Urban AreasFernerkundung Urbanen Räum. 2001, 35, 107–118.
  5. Kuffer, M.; Pfeffer, K.; Sliuzas, R.; Baud, I. Extraction of Slum Areas from VHR Imagery Using GLCM Variance. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2016, 9, 1830–1840.
  6. Mudau, N.; Mhangara, P. Investigation of Informal Settlement Indicators in a Densely Populated Area Using Very High Spatial Resolution Satellite Imagery. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4735.
  7. Fallatah, A.; Jones, S.; Mitchell, D.; Kohli, D. Mapping Informal Settlement Indicators Using Object-Oriented Analysis in the Middle East. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2019, 12, 802–824.
  8. Hofmann, P.; Strobl, J.; Blaschke, T.; Kux, H. Detecting Informal Settlements from QuickBird Data in Rio de Janeiro Using an Object Based Approach. In Object-Based Image Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 531–553.
  9. Drǎguţ, L.; Tiede, D.; Levick, S.R. ESP: A Tool to Estimate Scale Parameter for Multiresolution Image Segmentation of Remotely Sensed Data. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2010, 24, 859–871.
  10. Naorem, V.; Kuffer, M.; Verplanke, J.; Kohli, D. Robustness of rule sets using VHR imagery to detect informal settlements-a case of Mumbai, India. In Proceedings of the GEOBIA 2016: Solutions and Synergies, Enschede, The Netherlands, 14–16 September 2016; University of Twente Faculty of Geo-Information and Earth Observation ITC: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2016.
  11. Pratomo, J.; Kuffer, M.; Kohli, D.; Martinez, J. Application of the Trajectory Error Matrix for Assessing the Temporal Transferability of OBIA for Slum Detection. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 51, 838–849.
  12. Matarira, D.; Mutanga, O.; Naidu, M.; Vizzari, M. Object-Based Informal Settlement Mapping in Google Earth Engine Using the Integration of Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, and PlanetScope Satellite Data. Land 2022, 12, 99.
  13. Mudau, N.; Mhangara, P. Towards Understanding Informal Settlement Growth Patterns: Contribution to SDG Reporting and Spatial Planning. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2022, 27, 100801.
  14. Zhao, L.; Ren, H.; Cui, C.; Huang, Y. A Partition-Based Detection of Urban Villages Using High-Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery in Guangzhou, China. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2334.
  15. Fallatah, A.; Jones, S.; Mitchell, D. Object-Based Random Forest Classification for Informal Settlements Identification in the Middle East: Jeddah a Case Study. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2020, 41, 4421–4445.
  16. Kohli, D.; Sliuzas, R.; Kerle, N.; Stein, A. An Ontology of Slums for Image-Based Classification. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2012, 36, 154–163.
  17. Kohli, D.; Stein, A.; Sliuzas, R. Uncertainty Analysis for Image Interpretations of Urban Slums. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2016, 60, 37–49.
  18. Kohli, D. Identifying and Classifying Slum Areas Using Remote Sensing; University of Twente: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2015.
  19. Nassar, D.M.; Elsayed, H.G. From Informal Settlements to Sustainable Communities. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 2367–2376.
  20. Sliuzas, R. Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Slum Identification and Mapping Some of the Authors of This Publication Are Also Working on These Related Projects: Global Urban Mapping View Project Integrated Deprived Area Mapping System IDEAMAPS. View Project. 2008. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271074739 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  21. Haralick, R.M.; Shanmugam, K.; Dinstein, I.H. Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1973, 610–621.
  22. Prabhu, R.; Alagu Raja, R.A. Urban Slum Detection Approaches from High-Resolution Satellite Data Using Statistical and Spectral Based Approaches. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2018, 46, 2033–2044.
  23. Jeevalakshmi, D.; Reddy, S.N.; Manikiam, B. Land Cover Classification Based on NDVI Using LANDSAT8 Time Series: A Case Study Tirupati Region. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP), Melmaruvathur, India, 6–8 April 2016; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1332–1335.
  24. Owen, K.K.; Wong, D.W. An Approach to Differentiate Informal Settlements Using Spectral, Texture, Geomorphology and Road Accessibility Metrics. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 38, 107–118.
  25. Kit, O.; Lüdeke, M.; Reckien, D. Texture-Based Identification of Urban Slums in Hyderabad, India Using Remote Sensing Data. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 32, 660–667.
  26. Gefen, Y.; Meir, Y.; Mandelbrot, B.B.; Aharony, A. Geometric Implementation of Hypercubic Lattices with Noninteger Dimensionality by Use of Low Lacunarity Fractal Lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1983, 50, 145.
  27. Owen, K. Settlement indicators of wellbeing and economic status-lacunarity and vegetation. In Pecora 18-Forty Years of Earth Observati; Understanding a Changing World: Herndon, Virginia, 2011.
  28. Wasisa, K.P.; Santosa, S.H.M.B.; Hidayati, I.N. Slums detection on worldview-3 imagery based-on integration of image sharpening and lacunarity algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Indonesian Society for Remote Sensing, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 17–19 October 2016; Remote Sensing for a Better Governance: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2016.
  29. Wurm, M.; Stark, T.; Zhu, X.X.; Weigand, M.; Taubenböck, H. Semantic Segmentation of Slums in Satellite Images Using Transfer Learning on Fully Convolutional Neural Networks. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019, 150, 59–69.
  30. Najmi, A.; Gevaert, C.M.; Kohli, D.; Kuffer, M.; Pratomo, J. Integrating Remote Sensing and Street View Imagery for Mapping Slums. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 631.
  31. Salem, M.; Tsurusaki, N.; Eissa, A.; Osman, T. Detection of Slums from Very High-Resolution Satellite Images Using Machine Learning Algorithms: A Case Study of Fustat Area in Cairo, Egypt. 2020, Volume 6, pp. 219–224. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2324/4102491 (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  32. Norman, M.; Shahar, H.M.; Mohamad, Z.; Rahim, A.; Mohd, F.A.; Shafri, H.Z.M. Urban Building Detection Using Object-Based Image Analysis OBIA. and Machine Learning ML. Algorithms. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 620.
  33. Dovey, K.; van Oostrum, M.; Chatterjee, I.; Shafique, T. Towards a Morphogenesis of Informal Settlements. Habitat Int. 2020, 104, 102240.
  34. Abebe, M.S.; Derebew, K.T.; Gemeda, D.O. Exploiting Temporal-Spatial Patterns of Informal Settlements Using GIS and Remote Sensing Technique: A Case Study of Jimma City, Southwestern Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Res. 2019, 8, 6.
  35. Githira, D.N. Growth and Eviction of Informal Settlements in Nairobi. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2016.
  36. Sirueri, F.O. Comparing Spatial Patterns of Informal Settlements between Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2015.
  37. Dubovyk, O.; Sliuzas, R.; Flacke, J. Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Informal Settlements Development: A Case Study of Istanbul, Turkey; University of Twente Faculty of Geo-Information and Earth Observation ITC: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2010.
  38. Shekhar, S. Detecting Slums from Quick Bird Data in Pune Using an Object Oriented Approach. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 2012, XXXIX-B8, 519–524.
  39. Fallatah, A.; Jones, S.; Wallace, L.; Mitchell, D. Combining Object-Based Machine Learning with Long-Term Time-Series Analysis for Informal Settlement Identification. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1226.
  40. Liu, R.; Kuffer, M.; Persello, C. The Temporal Dynamics of Slums Employing a CNN-Based Change Detection Approach. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2844.
  41. Kit, O.; Lüdeke, M. Automated Detection of Slum Area Change in Hyderabad, India Using Multitemporal Satellite Imagery. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2013, 83, 130–137.
  42. Maiya, S.R.; Babu, S.C. Slum Segmentation and Change Detection: A Deep Learning Approach. arXiv 2018, arXiv:181107896.
  43. Gevaert, C.M.; Persello, C.; Sliuzas, R.; Vosselman, G. Monitoring Household Upgrading in Unplanned Settlements with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2020, 90, 102117.
  44. Gevaert, C.; Sliuzas, R.; Persello, C.; Vosselman, G. Opportunities for UAV Mapping to Support Unplanned Settlement Upgrading. Rwanda J. 2016, 1–19.
  45. Nex, F.; Remondino, F. UAV for 3D Mapping Applications: A Review. Appl. Geomat. 2014, 6, 1–15.
  46. Gevaert, C.M.; Persello, C.; Sliuzas, R.; Vosselman, G. Informal Settlement Classification Using Point-Cloud and Image-Based Features from UAV Data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2017, 125, 225–236.
  47. Ashilah, Q.P.; Rokhmatuloh; Hernina, R. Urban Slum Identification in Bogor Tengah Sub-District, Bogor City Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UAV. Images and Object-Based Image Analysis. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 716.
  48. Pérez, M.; Agüera, F.; Carvajal, F. Low cost surveying using an unmanned aerial vehicle. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2013, XL-1/W2, 311–315.
  49. Sliuzas, R.; Kuffer, M.; Gevaert, C.; Persello, C.; Pfeffer, K. Slum Mapping From Space to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Based Approaches. In Proceedings of the 2017 Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event (JURSE), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 6–8 March 2017.
  50. Gibson, L.; Adeleke, A.; Hadden, R.; Rush, D. Spatial Metrics from LiDAR Roof Mapping for Fire Spread Risk Assessment of Informal Settlements in Cape Town, South Africa. Fire Saf. J. 2021, 120, 103053.
  51. Khawte, S.S.; Koeva, M.N.; Gevaert, C.M.; Oude Elberink, S.; Pedro, A.A. Digital twin creation for slums in Brazil based on UAV data. In International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences—ISPRS Archives; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: Grosvenor Ln, MD, USA, 2022; Volume 48, pp. 75–81.
  52. Liu, H.; Huang, X.; Wen, D.; Li, J. The Use of Landscape Metrics and Transfer Learning to Explore Urban Villages in China. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 365.
  53. Dahiya, S.; Garg, P.K.; Jat, M.K. Automated Extraction of Slum Built-up Areas from Multispectral Imageries. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2020, 48, 113–119.
  54. Mayunga, S.D.; Coleman, D.J.; Zhang, Y. Semi-Automatic Building Extraction in Dense Urban Settlement Areas from High-Resolution Satellite Images. Surv. Rev. 2010, 42, 50–61.
  55. Nobrega, R.A.A.; O’hara, C.G.; Quintanilha, J.A. Detecting roads in informal settlements surrounding Sao Paulo city by using object-based classification. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Object-Based Image Analysis, Salzburg, Austria, 4–5 July 2006.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback