https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3367-2925
Figures & data
Figure 1. Location of the study area
Table 1. List of satellite images and their details
Figure 2. Methodological research scheme
Table 2. LULC classes and their respective thresholds obtained for object features
Table 3. The implemented object features and their correlation between properties and quantifiable attributes
Table 4. Difference function and its respective default values for each category (Feizizadeh Citation2018)
Table 5. Results of the accuracy assessment and ICR values for the FOBIA-DL based classified LULC maps
Figure 3. DST Framework of the spatial uncertainty modeling
Figure 4. Results of the LULC classification Fuzzy-OBIA-DL, a) 2020, b) 2015, c) 2010, d) 2005, e) 2000, f) 1995 and g) 1990
Figure 5. Results of the LULC classification based on the SVM, a) 2020, b) 2015, c) 2010, d) 2005, e) 2000, f) 1995 and g) 1990
Figure 6. Results of the LULC classification Based on the RF, a) 2020, b) 2015, c) 2010, d) 2005, e) 2000, f) 1995 and g) 1990
Figure 7. Results of the LULC classification based on the CART, a) 2020, b) 2015, c) 2010, d) 2005, e) 2000, f) 1995 and g) 1990
Table 6. Results of the accuracy assessment and ICR values for the FOBIA-DL based classified LULC maps
Figure 8. Fuzzy-OBIA-DL Spatial uncertainty assessment results for LULC maps based on the DST method: a) 2020, b) 2015, c) 2010, d) 2005, e) 2000, f) 1995 and g) 1990
Figure 9. SVM Spatial uncertainty assessment results for LULC maps based on the DST method: a) 2020, b) 2015, c) 2010, d) 2005, e) 2000, f) 1995 and g) 1990
Figure 10. RF Spatial uncertainty assessment results for LULC maps based on the DST method: a) 2020, b) 2015, c) 2010, d) 2005, e) 2000, f) 1995 and g) 1990
Figure 11. CART Spatial uncertainty assessment results for LULC maps based on the DST method: a) 2020, b) 2015, c) 2010, d) 2005, e) 2000, f) 1995 and g) 1990
Table 7. Kappa coefficient for each algorithm in each study year
Table 8. LULC area changes (km2)