Submitted:
17 October 2025
Posted:
17 October 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Methodological transparency. We provide a fully documented pipeline from data preprocessing to model evaluation, ensuring reproducibility and clarity for future applications.
- Efficiency–accuracy trade-off. We demonstrate that a CNN with fewer than 150,000 parameters can reach competitive accuracy (>91% OA, kappa 0.82), while reducing computational demands by more than 90% compared to conventional CNN architectures.
2. Related Work
2.1. Traditional Machine Learning Approaches
2.2. Deep Learning with CNNs
2.3. Lightweight CNN Architectures
2.4. Reproducibility and Methodological Transparency
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area

3.2. Data
3.3. Preprocessing
- Atmospheric correction (Sen2Cor).
- Resampling of 20 m bands to 10 m resolution was performed using bilinear interpolation.
- Cloud masking using the Scene Classification Layer (SCL).
- Normalization of reflectance values.
3.4. CNN Architecture
3.5. Training and Evaluation Setup
4. Results
4.1. Classification Accuracy
4.1.1. Overall and Class-Wise Accuracy
4.1.2. Error Analysis by NDVI
4.2. Training Dynamics
4.2.1. Accuracy Curves
4.2.2. Loss Curves
4.3. Confusion Matrix
4.4. Comparative Analysis
4.5. Spatial Classification Map
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| CNN | Convolutional Neural Network |
| RGB | Red-Green-Blue |
| NIR | Near Infrared |
| SWIR | Short-Wave Infrared |
| NDVI | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index |
| GPU | Graphics Processing Unit |
References
- Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; et al. Lightweight Vision Transformers for Remote Sensing Image Classification. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1125. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Z.; Huang, L.; Zhao, W.; Li, D. Edge AI for Remote Sensing: Deploying Lightweight CNNs on Resource-Constrained Platforms. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 1120. [Google Scholar]
- Chollet, F. Xception: Deep Learning with Depthwise Separable Convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Honolulu, HI, USA, 21–26 July 2017; pp. 1800–1807. [Google Scholar]
- Cortes, C.; Vapnik, V. Support-Vector Networks. Mach. Learn. 1995, 20, 273–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dosovitskiy, A.; et al. An Image is Worth 16×16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Virtual Event, 3–7 May 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Drusch, M.; et al. Sentinel-2: ESA’s Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 120, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitton, D.; Li, J.; Fuentes, A.; Xiao, W.; Ghimire, B. Land Cover Classification through Convolutional Neural Networks Aggregation. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 2022, 27, 100785. [Google Scholar]
- Foody, G.M. Status of Land Cover Classification Accuracy Assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 80, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foody, G.M.; Mathur, A. A Relative Evaluation of Multiclass Image Classification by Support Vector Machines. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2004, 42, 1335–1343. [Google Scholar]
- Friedl, M.A.; Brodley, C.E. Decision Tree Classification of Land Cover from Remotely Sensed Data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1997, 61, 399–409. [Google Scholar]
- He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 770–778. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, A.G.; et al. MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applications. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1704.04861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Hinton, G.E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Lake Tahoe, NV, USA, ; pp. 1097–1105. 3–6 December.
- Kussul, N.; Lavreniuk, M.; Skakun, S.; Shelestov, A. Deep Learning Classification of Land Cover and Crop Types Using Remote Sensing Data. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2017, 14, 778–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep Learning. Nature 2015, 521, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Xu, H.; Zhou, G. Lightweight Vision Transformers for Large-Scale Remote Sensing Image Classification. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2455. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.; et al. Cross-Regional Transferability of Deep Learning Models for Land Cover Mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 264, 112588. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; et al. Lightweight Deep Learning Models for Resource-Constrained Remote Sensing Applications. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2021, 59, 506–517. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, L.; et al. Deep Learning in Remote Sensing Applications: A Meta-Analysis and Review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019, 152, 166–177. [Google Scholar]
- Park, S.; Kim, J.; Lee, H. Multi-Temporal Lightweight Deep Learning Models for Crop Monitoring with Sentinel-2. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 1789. [Google Scholar]
- Pelletier, C.; Valero, S.; Inglada, J.; Champion, N.; Dedieu, G. Can Deep Learning Models Predict Land Cover from Sentinel-2 Time Series Data? Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 220. [Google Scholar]
- Rocchini, D.; et al. Measuring and Modeling Biodiversity from Space. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 198–215. [Google Scholar]
- Rouse, J.W.; Haas, R.H.; Schell, J.A.; Deering, D.W. Monitoring Vegetation Systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. NASA SP-351.
- Russwurm, M.; Körner, M. Multi-Temporal Land Cover Classification with Recurrent Neural Networks. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2018, 139, 123–135. [Google Scholar]
- Simonyan, K.; Zisserman, A. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. arXiv 2014, arXiv:1409.1556. [Google Scholar]
- Tekson, T. LULC Classification using EuroSAT Dataset. Available online: https://github.com/iamtekson/DL-for-LULC-prediction/blob/master/lulc_classification_euroSAT.ipynb (accessed on 15 September 2025).
- Tuia, D.; et al. Recent Trends in Deep Learning for Remote Sensing: Challenges and Future Directions. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. 2022, 10, 95–122. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.; et al. Lightweight CNNs for Remote Sensing Scene Classification. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2056. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Y.; et al. Fusion of SAR and Optical Data for Land Cover Classification with Deep Learning. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1486. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, L.; et al. ResNet-Based Architectures for Remote Sensing Image Classification. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2020, 58, 3546–3557. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Zhou, X.; Lin, M.; Sun, J. ShuffleNet: An Extremely Efficient Convolutional Neural Network for Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 18–22 June 2018; pp. 6848–6856. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, X.X.; et al. Deep Learning in Remote Sensing: A Comprehensive Review and List of Resources. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. 2017, 5, 8–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]










| Band | Wavelength (nm) | Resolution (m) | Description |
| B01 | 442.7 | 60 | Coastal aerosol |
| B02 | 492.4 | 10 | Blue |
| B03 | 559.8 | 10 | Green |
| B04 | 664.6 | 10 | Red |
| B05 | 704.1 | 20 | Red edge 1 |
| B06 | 740.5 | 20 | Red edge 2 |
| B07 | 782.8 | 20 | Red edge 3 |
| B08 | 832.8 | 10 | NIR |
| B8A | 864.7 | 20 | Red edge 4 |
| B09 | 945.1 | 60 | Water vapour |
| B11 | 1613.7 | 20 | SWIR 1 |
| B12 | 2202.4 | 20 | SWIR 2 |
| Parameter | Value / Setting | Notes |
| Optimizer | Adam | Widely adopted in RS tasks |
| Initial learning rate | 0.001 | Stable convergence |
| Batch size | 32 | Trade-off: stability vs efficiency |
| Epochs (max) | 50 | With early stopping (patience = 10) |
| Loss function | Categorical cross-entropy | Suitable for classification tasks |
| Regularization (L2) | λ = 0.001 | Prevents overfitting |
| Dropout | 0.3 | Applied before output layer |
| Hardware | NVIDIA GTX 1660 (6 GB VRAM) | Modest GPU, reproducibility focus |
| Metric | Value |
| Overall Accuracy | 91.20% |
| Kappa Coefficient | 0.82 |
| Precision (macro) | 90.00% |
| Recall (macro) | 91.00% |
| F1-Score (macro) | 90.00% |
| Class | Precision | Recall | F1-Score |
| Soil | 89.00% | 88.00% | 89.00% |
| Vegetation | 91.00% | 94.00% | 92.00% |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).