International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XXXIX-B7, 2012 
XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August — 01 September 2012, Melbourne, Australia 
using geocoded optical data (LISS-4), on the 
basis of the real coordinates available. For eah 
of the target, Polarimetric signatures were 
generated using the developed tool “POLSIC”. 
From the study and analysis of polarimetric 
signatures generated for various urban targets, 
following results were obtained: 
3.1 Built up-1, 2 (within city) & Built up 
within Water body: 
Figures 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.1(c) shows the 
polarimetric response (copol & cross pol) for 
three built up targets respectively. These targets 
have been chosen in three different locations, 
with different orientations and different 
surroundings in order to study and analyze their 
polarimetric responses. The backscattered 
power values of all the three urban areas appear 
to be more or less similar. The copolarized 
response shows that there is a high vertical 
response with a lower response for horizontally 
polarized EM waves. The cross polarized 
response behaves in an exactly opposite manner 
to the co polarization response. In all the three 
cases, the cross polarization power response is 
lower compared to co-polarization power 
response. For both copol and cross pol 
responses, there is moderate amount of 
randomly oriented backscatter that can be 
viewed from the pedestal heights of each target 
plot respectively. These built up area responses 
resemble the polarimetric signature of a 
dihedral corner reflector with a pedestal 
component. This is consistent with the fact that 
an urban area is often composed of buildings, 
which are essentially dihedral corner reflectors, 
and trees, which are volume scatterers. 
However, it is observed that built up-1 and built 
up within the water body have a higher power 
response as compared to built up-2. The reason 
to this difference can be the height of the built 
up area, orientation of both being perpendicular 
with respect to the look angle, effect of 
surrounding buildings, trees, etc. 
In case of built up-1, the co-polarized response 
shows a peak at 0° ellipticity angle and 150° 
orientation angle, while the cross polarization 
response shows three maximas at +0° ellipticity 
angle and orientation angles 0°, 50° and 180° 
538 
respectively. Built up-2 shows a lower power 
response, with a peak at 0° ellipticity angle and 
135° orientation angle in co-polarization 
response, while the cross polarization response 
is reverse, with three peaks, one near +45° 
ellipticity angle and the other two around 0° 
ellipticity angle. Built up within the water body, 
shows a peak at ellipticity greater than 0° and 
orientation angle around 135°, while the cross 
pol response shows two minimas around 
vertical polarization. 
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Co-polarized Signature Cross-polarized Signature 
Figure 3.1(a): Polarimetric response of Built up-1 
(within city) 
  
  
  
   
  
sae 
  
  
  
  
Co-polarized Signature Cross-polarized Signature 
Figure 3.1(b): Polarimetric response of Built up-2 
(within city) 
  
Tad X LN 
   
     
t. 
in, 
    
  
  
  
  
  
  
Co-polarized Signature Cross-polarized Signature 
Figure 3.1(c): Polarimetric response of Built up 
within water body 
3.2 Road-1, 2 & Bridge (Linear Features): 
Figures 3.2(a), 3.2(b) and 3.2(c) shows the 
polarimetric responses (co-pol & cross pol) of a 
road-1, road-2 and bridge respectively. In case 
of road-1, which passes through a built up area 
in Ahmedabad, it is found that the co-