September 30, 2026
ArcGIS Deep Learning Land Cover Classification for Pipeline Expansion Support
Classification of Lands with ArcGIS Deep Learning to Support Pipeline Expansion
Antonio Marcos Pires Martins; Arthur Damasceno Vicente
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602687
Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.
Summary
Pipeline expansion demands territorial planning that reconciles technical feasibility and environmental constraints. The objective was to apply a preliminary territorial suitability approach to support initial pipeline expansion planning. Remote sensing data and spatial analysis were used. The methodology explored the classification of land use and cover by deep learning on Sentinel-2 images and evaluated physical terrain variables, such as slope and aspect, and socio-environmental constraints, including water bodies and quilombola areas. The validation of the deep learning thematic classification showed an overall accuracy of 44.4% and a Kappa index of 0.305, evidencing limitations of the pre-trained model against the seasonal conditions of the study area. This performance made the direct integration of the cover map into the suitability model unfeasible at this stage. However, a preliminary suitability model was structured, categorized into suitable, conditioned, and restricted areas, based on physical and restrictive variables. The point-based analysis verified the spatial distribution of these classes, with 46.3% of the areas classified as suitable, 37.0% as conditioned, and 12.0% as restricted. It was concluded that the individual exploration of these techniques constitutes an important initial support for the planning of linear infrastructures, offering a transparent framework of criteria and precedences for spatial screening.
Keywords: Spatial Analysis; Territorial suitability; Deep learning; Geoprocessing; Linear infrastructure.
1. Introduction
The expansion of energy infrastructures, such as gas pipelines, demands territorial planning processes that reconcile technical feasibility, environmental restrictions, and legal conditions. The definition of suitable areas for the implementation of this type of infrastructure involves the integrated analysis of multiple spatial variables, including physical terrain characteristics, land use and cover patterns, and the presence of sensitive areas. In this context, the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has been consolidated as an essential tool to support decision-making in infrastructure projects, especially in the initial planning phases (Longley et al., 2015).
Traditionally, territorial suitability analyses for the deployment of pipelines and other linear infrastructures are based on the integration of thematic cartographic databases and previously defined technical criteria. However, the availability, updating, and level of detail of this information do not always meet the needs of regional-scale projects, which can introduce uncertainties into the decision-making process (Eastman, 2012). In this regard, remote sensing has proven to be a relevant alternative for obtaining updated information about the territory, contributing to more consistent and integrated spatial analyses (Jensen, 2016).
In recent years, deep learning techniques have been widely applied to the classification of remote sensing images, showing significant advances in terms of automation and accuracy when compared to traditional classification methods (Ma et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2017). Convolutional neural network-based models allow the identification of complex patterns in multispectral images, enabling the generation of land use and land cover maps with a higher level of detail. These products can support spatial analyses aimed at planning linear infrastructures, including the identification of urban areas and water bodies.
Despite these advances, it is fundamental to distinguish the descriptive role of land use and land cover maps from that played by territorial suitability models. While image classification seeks to represent land occupation, suitability models aim to express technical and legal restrictions and conditions for the implementation of projects, based on the integration of different spatial variables (Malczewski, 2006). This distinction is essential to avoid misinterpretations and ensure that the generated products are used appropriately in the planning stages.
Given this context, and considering that the validation of thematic classification by deep learning presented limited performance (global accuracy of 44.4% and Kappa index of 0.305), which made its direct integration into the fitness model at this stage of the study unfeasible, this work is justified by the need for a spatial screening tool for linear infrastructure planning. Thus, the general objective of this work is to develop and apply a preliminary framework to support the assessment of territorial suitability for pipeline expansion, considering the characterization of land use and cover by deep learning, the physical variables of the terrain, and socio-environmental restrictions, with the suitability map elaborated from the physical variables and restrictions, without incorporating the classification obtained by deep learning at this stage of the study.
2. Material and Methods
The study adopted an exploratory approach, integrating remote sensing and spatial analysis to support the initial planning of pipeline expansion. A preliminary territorial suitability framework was developed, considering land use and cover by deep learning, physical terrain variables, and socio-environmental constraints. The methodology explored image classification and suitability modeling individually.
The research was conducted in the Far West of Bahia, covering pilot stretches in the municipalities of Buritirama, Barra, Mansidão, Cotegipe, Wanderley, Ibotirama, Morpará, and Xique-Xique. This region was selected due to its diversity of land uses and coverages, varied terrain, and the presence of environmentally sensitive areas, making it representative for the analysis of linear infrastructure planning. The spatial delimitation of the area was carried out in a GIS environment, with a compatible cartographic reference system.
For the land use and land cover classification, multispectral images from the Sentinel-2 satellite (August 2023) were used, obtained free of charge by the Copernicus program (COPERNICUS PROGRAMME – ESA & European Union, 2026). Images with low cloud cover (30%) were selected (Hofig; Araujo Junior, 2015). Slope orientation was incorporated as an exploratory physical determinant.
Proximity analyses were performed with the Distance Accumulation tool from ArcGIS Pro (Esri, 2026; Longley et al., 2015), applied to vector data of water bodies and quilombola areas. These variables were considered absolute restrictions for spatial exclusion. Binary masks (0 for restricted, 1 for unrestricted) were constructed with the Raster Calculator tool (Esri, 2026; Malczewski, 2006), standardizing the restrictions for integration into the suitability model.
The preliminary territorial suitability map was constructed by integrating the binary restriction masks with the reclassified variables of slope and aspect. The Raster Calculator tool with conditional logic (Con) in ArcGIS Pro (Esri, 2026; Malczewski, 2006) was used. This logic prioritized absolute restrictions and, in their absence, considered moderate restrictions from the physical terrain variables (Longley et al., 2015). The resulting map was classified into three categories: Suitable, Conditioned/Low Suitability, and Restricted.
To support the initial analysis of the territorial aptitude map, 1,000 random sample points were generated with the Create Random Points tool, distributed across the study area. The values of the raster layers were extracted for these points using the Extract Multi Values to Points tool (Esri, 2026; Longley et al., 2015). This procedure allowed the samples to be labeled according to the aptitude classes and the percentage distribution of the points to be quantified.
3. Results and Discussion
This research explored a preliminary approach to territorial suitability assessment for pipeline planning, integrating remote sensing and spatial analysis techniques. The results obtained are presented and discussed in two main fronts: the evaluation of the performance of land use and land cover classification by deep learning and the analysis of the preliminary territorial suitability map, built from physical variables and socio-environmental constraints. The distinction between these two approaches is crucial for understanding the meaning of the findings and their implications for linear infrastructure planning.
Initially, the land use and land cover classification, performed using a pre-trained deep learning model applied to Sentinel-2 images, generated a thematic map with several classes. A preliminary visual analysis, comparing this map with reference data from MapBiomas, revealed both thematic convergences and divergences in the spatial distribution of classes. This visual comparison was fundamental for a qualitative understanding of the map’s characteristics before its quantitative validation, aiding in the identification of patterns and inconsistencies in the territory’s representation.
Evaluation of Land Use and Land Cover Classification by Deep Learning
The quantitative validation of the thematic classification, essential for verifying the quality and reliability of the results, was performed using a confusion matrix. The performance indicators revealed an overall accuracy of 44.4% and a Kappa index of approximately 0.30. These values indicate limited model performance and only a modest agreement between the generated classification and the reference data. Although the overall accuracy surpassed the benchmark of 20% expected for a random classification among five classes, the result is not considered satisfactory for operational use (Olofsson et al., 2014; Jensen, 2016).
The detailed analysis of performance by thematic class showed heterogeneous behavior of the model. Class C4, corresponding to intensive anthropic areas, presented producer and user accuracies equal to zero, indicating a complete failure in its identification. This result suggests a significant difficulty for the model in differentiating urbanized areas and other modified surfaces within the study area, which compromises the representation of crucial elements for infrastructure planning.
For class C1, which represents open areas with low vegetation cover, a producer’s accuracy of 60% and a user’s accuracy of 26% were observed. This discrepancy suggests a tendency of the model to overestimate the presence of open areas, possibly assigning this class to locations that, in reality, had other types of cover or plantings. The low reliability for the user (26%) indicates that a significant portion of the areas classified as C1 did not correspond to the reality on the ground, generating commission errors.
The agricultural and low-growing vegetation areas (C2) showed 49% accuracy in identifying real areas (producer’s accuracy) and 61% reliability (user’s accuracy). This class demonstrated greater difficulty in differentiation, which may be related to the spectral similarity between soil preparation areas, crops, and the common low-growing vegetation in the region. The difficulty in distinguishing these categories is a known challenge in remote sensing classifications, especially in dynamic agricultural landscapes (Jensen, 2016).
Regarding mixed and forest vegetated areas (C3), the model correctly identified only 37% of existing areas (producer’s accuracy), but showed a reliability of 71% (user’s accuracy). This pattern suggests a more conservative behavior of the model, where the classification was more precise in the areas it actually identified as forest, but with a high omission of real areas. This implies that many forest areas were not detected, which can be problematic in planning contexts that require the identification of all sensitive areas.
Class C5, which comprises water and wetlands, achieved the best performance in identifying actual areas, with 76% producer’s accuracy. This indicates that the model has a good capacity to recognize the presence of water bodies. However, the user’s accuracy of 56% suggests that a portion of the areas classified as water may have been confused with other elements with similar spectral characteristics, such as shadows or wet soils, resulting in commission errors.
The main classification errors observed, particularly between natural vegetation areas and planted areas, can be attributed to the similarity of the spectral characteristics of these covers for the satellite sensor. Furthermore, the use of a global pre-trained model, which was not adjusted with specific examples from Bahia’s landscapes, likely contributed to the limited performance. The time of year of the satellite images (August), a dry period in Western Bahia, may also have influenced the divergences, as the native vegetation shows less vigor and resembles harvested or preparation agricultural areas (Jansen; Di Gregorio, 2008).
The difference in temporal resolution between the data used also represented a limitation. While the Sentinel-2 images corresponded to August 2023, the MapBiomas reference data were consolidated annually. This temporal incompatibility hindered a direct and precise comparison, introducing uncertainties in the validation. In summary, the deep learning classification, although exploratory, demonstrated the limitations of transferring a pre-trained global model to a specific regional context without local adjustments or calibrations.
Due to limited performance in the classification validation, data derived from the deep learning model were not quantitatively incorporated into the preliminary territorial suitability map at this stage of the study. They remained as a complementary analytical product, used for the characterization of land use and cover and for the interpretation of the territorial context. This methodological decision was crucial to preserve the traceability of the suitability model and avoid the propagation of thematic classification uncertainties to the final spatial screening result.
Territorial Aptitude Map Assessment
The construction of the preliminary territorial suitability map for pipeline expansion was carried out by integrating physical terrain variables and socio-environmental constraints. The slope and aspect variables, derived from the Digital Terrain Model, were reclassified into suitability categories. Slope was categorized as suitable (less than 10%), conditional (between 10% and 30%), and restricted (greater than 30%), based on suitability criteria (Hofig; Araujo Junior, 2015).
Socio-environmental restrictions, such as quilombola areas and bodies of water, were treated as absolute restrictions, represented by binary masks where the value zero indicated a restricted area and the value one, an unrestricted area. These masks were generated through proximity analyses, using geoprocessing tools. The integration logic prioritized absolute restrictions, and in their absence, considered moderate restrictions associated with the physical variables of the terrain (Longley et al., 2015).
The resulting suitability map classified the territory into three decision support categories: Suitable, Conditional/Low Suitability, and Restricted. This explicit hierarchy of criteria and precedences ensures the model’s traceability and reproducibility, making it a transparent tool for spatial screening. It is important to emphasize that the thresholds adopted for the physical variables are indicative and exploratory in nature, and should be parameterized according to technical standards and specific engineering requirements in operational applications.
For a quantitative analysis of the spatial distribution of aptitude classes, one thousand random sample points were generated. The percentage distribution of these points revealed that the Apt class is predominant, corresponding to 46.3% of occurrences. The Conditioned/Low Aptitude category represented 37.0% of the total points, indicating areas that require additional considerations or more complex engineering solutions for the implementation of pipelines.
Restricted Areas accounted for 12.0% of the sample points, reflecting the application of exclusion rules based on absolute restrictions, such as the presence of water bodies and quilombola areas. The remaining 4.7% corresponded to points with no information or other unclassified categories. These percentages describe the distribution of aptitude classes in the analyzed territory, serving to verify the behavior and spatial distribution of the rules implemented in the preliminary model.
The preliminary territorial suitability model, therefore, is not configured as a definitive route design solution for pipelines, but as a spatial screening tool that supports the initial planning stages. It offers a transparent framework of criteria and precedences for organizing spatial information, aiding in the prioritization of areas for more detailed studies. The methodology demonstrated the potential to integrate remote sensing and geoprocessing data to provide robust initial support for decision-making in linear infrastructure projects.
In summary, the research achieved its objective of developing a preliminary framework to support the assessment of territorial suitability, using physical terrain variables and socio-environmental constraints. Although the classification of land use and cover by deep learning showed limited performance and was not directly integrated into the suitability model at this stage, the individual exploration of these techniques, together with spatial analysis, constitutes an important initial support for the planning of linear infrastructures, offering a transparent basis for spatial screening and the identification of priority areas for future investigation.
4. Conclusion
The study aimed to develop and apply a preliminary framework to support the assessment of territorial suitability for pipeline expansion, integrating land use and land cover characterization by deep learning, physical terrain variables, and socio-environmental restrictions. It was found that the land use and land cover classification by deep learning, although exploratory, showed limited performance, with a global accuracy of 44.4% and a Kappa index of 0.305. This performance made its direct integration into the suitability model at this stage unfeasible, due to challenges such as spectral similarity between classes and the absence of local calibration of the pre-trained model. However, a preliminary territorial suitability model was structured, categorized into suitable, conditional, and restricted areas, based on slope, aspect, and absolute socio-environmental restrictions, such as water bodies and quilombola territories. The analysis by sample points indicated that 46.3% of the areas were classified as suitable, 37.0% as conditional, and 12.0% as restricted. The main contribution lies in the proposal of a transparent framework of criteria and precedences for spatial screening, offering robust initial support for the planning of linear infrastructures.
The study’s limitations included the restricted performance of the pre-trained deep learning model, which was not adjusted to regional specificities, and the temporal incompatibility between satellite images and reference data, introducing uncertainties in validation. The aptitude thresholds adopted for the physical variables are indicative and exploratory in nature, requiring parameterization according to engineering standards in operational applications. For future studies, it is recommended to train and fine-tune deep learning models with local samples, perform temporal validation across different seasonal periods, and incorporate new factors into the aptitude model, such as proximity to the road network, geotechnical data, and expropriation costs, in addition to applying multi-criteria and sensitivity analyses. Such advancements would enhance the robustness and reliability of the results, consolidating the methodology as a more comprehensive tool for territorial planning of pipelines.
Bibliographic References
Copernicus Programme; European Union. 2026. Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem: acesso a dados de observação da Terra e modelos digitais de elevação. Disponível em: <https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/>. Acesso em: 08 fev. 2026.
Departamento Nacional de Infraestrutura de Transportes [DNIT]. 2026. VGeo: Visualizador de Informações Geográficas do DNIT. Disponível em: <https://servicos.dnit.gov.br/vgeo/>. Acesso em: 06 fev. 2026.
Di Gregorio, A.; Jansen, L.J.M. 2000. Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): classification concepts and user manual. FAO, Rome, Italy. Disponível em: <https://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/x0596e00.htm>. Acesso em: 12 abr. 2026.
Eastman, J.R. 2012. IDRISI Selva Manual. Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA. Disponível em: <http://uhulag.mendelu.cz/files/pagesdata/eng/gis/idrisi_selva_tutorial.pdf>. Acesso em: 03 fev. 2026.
Esri. 2025. Deep learning using the ArcGIS Image Analyst extension. Disponível em: <https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/help/analysis/image-analyst/deep-learning-in-arcgis-pro.htm>. Acesso em: 11 out. 2025.
Esri. 2026. ArcGIS Pro: Deep Learning Land Cover Classification. Esri, Redlands, CA, USA. Disponível em: <https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview>. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2026.
Jensen, J.R. 2016. Introductory Digital Image Processing: a remote sensing perspective. 4ed. Pearson, New York, NY, USA.
Longley, P.A.; Goodchild, M.F.; Maguire, D.J.; Rhind, D.W. 2015. Geographic Information Science and Systems. 4ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Ma, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Ye, Y.; Yin, G.; Johnson, B.A. 2019. Deep learning in remote sensing applications: a meta analysis and review. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 152: 166-177.
Malczewski, J. 2006. GIS based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 20(7): 703-726.
MapBiomas. 2026. Plataforma MapBiomas Brasil: coleções de cobertura e uso da terra no Brasil. Disponível em: <https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/>. Acesso em: 05 fev. 2026.
Olofsson, P.; Foody, G.M.; Herold, M.; Stehman, S.V.; Woodcock, C.E.; Wulder, M.A. 2014. Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sensing of Environment 148: 42-57.
Zhu, X.X.; Tu, W.; Mou, L.; Xia, G.S.; Zhang, L.; Xu, F.; Fraundorfer, F. 2017. Deep learning in remote sensing: a comprehensive review. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 5(4): 8-36.
Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Data Science and Analytics of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform