IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10754-d900772.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Four Machine Learning Algorithms for Land Cover Classification in Gold Mining: A Case Study of Kyaukpahto Gold Mine, Northern Myanmar

Author

Listed:
  • Tin Ko Oo

    (Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

  • Noppol Arunrat

    (Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

  • Sukanya Sereenonchai

    (Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

  • Achara Ussawarujikulchai

    (Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

  • Uthai Chareonwong

    (Thai Telecommunication Relay Service, Bangkok Noi, Bangkok 10700, Thailand)

  • Winai Nutmagul

    (Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

Abstract

Numerous studies have been undertaken to determine the optimal land use/cover classification algorithm. However, there have not been many studies that have compared and evaluated the performance of maximum likelihood (ML), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and classification and regression trees (CART) using ASTER imagery, especially in a mining district. Therefore, this study aims to investigate land use/cover (LULC) change over three decades (1990–2020), comparing the performance of the ML, RF, SVM, and CART machine learning algorithms. The Landsat and ASTER data were retrieved using Google Earth Engine (GEE). Traditional ML classification was performed on ArcGIS 10.2 software while RF, SVM, and CART classification were undertaken on GEE. Then, thematic accuracy assessments were conducted for the four algorithms and their performances were compared. The results showed that the largest changes in area occurred in forest cover that decreased from 37.8 to 27.3 km 2 during the three decades. The remarkable expansion of gold mining occurred during 2005–2010 with the increases of 1.6%. The mining land rose by 2.9% during the study period whereas agricultural land increased significantly by 10.7% between 1990 and 2020. When comparing the four algorithms, the RF algorithm gives the highest accuracy with an overall accuracy of 95.85% while SVM follows RF with 91.69%. This study proved that RF is the best choice for optimal land use/cover classification, particularly in the mining district.

Suggested Citation

  • Tin Ko Oo & Noppol Arunrat & Sukanya Sereenonchai & Achara Ussawarujikulchai & Uthai Chareonwong & Winai Nutmagul, 2022. "Comparing Four Machine Learning Algorithms for Land Cover Classification in Gold Mining: A Case Study of Kyaukpahto Gold Mine, Northern Myanmar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10754-:d:900772
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10754/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10754/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jianan Chi & Xiangxin Bu & Xiao Zhang & Lijun Wang & Nannan Zhang, 2023. "Insights into Cottonseed Cultivar Identification Using Raman Spectroscopy and Explainable Machine Learning," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10754-:d:900772. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.