9 shows an example of field evalua- 
Table 2 shows the evaluation 
result. Among 30 areas, 27 areas were "AM, 
3 areas were "B" and no "C". This result 
proved the usefulness of this system for 
updating the land use data from satellite 
data. 
Fig. 
tion sheet. 
5. CONCLUSION 
Through this study, a personal computer 
based satellite image interpretation 
system was developed. This system allows 
users to update conventional land use 
data by using latest high resolution 
technique with support of various func- 
tions of the system. The evaluation of the 
updated data by field survey proved the 
effectiveness of CASYII for updating land 
use data from satellite data. 
The image interpretation approach seems to 
be retrogressive to the computer technolo- 
gy advancement. However, so far, the image 
interpretation approach is one of the most 
practical way to smoothly transfer the air 
photo based renewal system to the satel- 
lite data based renewal system. Moreover, 
the various digital image processing 
functions of CASYII allow users to update 
land use data more effectively and effi- 
ciently than only using photo interpreta- 
tion technique. 
Acknowledgement 
All the land use data updating works had 
been done by Aero Asahi Co., Asia Air 
Survey Co., Kokusai Kogyo Co., and PASCO 
Co. under the contract of RESTEC. The 
authors would like to thank them for there 
great contribution. 
Reference 
a) Asianont S., 1988, "Base Map Updating 
in Thailand Using SPOT Imagery", Proc. 
of the 9th Asian Conference on Remote 
Sensing, d-7. 
Cushine I. Janis, 1987, "The interac- 
tive effect of spatial resolution and 
degree of internal variability within 
land-cover types on classification 
accuracies", Int. J. Remote Sensing, 
yol.8, no.1. pp.15-29. 
Hosomura, T. et al, 1989, "Performance 
of MESSR data for land cover  classifi- 
cation Proc. of the Third Symposium on 
MOS-1 Verification Program, vol.1l, 
pp.199-213 
Cho, K., et al, 1990, "Personal 
Computer Based Image Interpretation 
Using SPOT Image and Conventional Land 
Use Information", Proc. of ISPRS Comm. 
IV. vol.22, no.4, pp.467-474. 
b) 
c) 
d) 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 2 Evaluation result 
No.| Item of the old Updated item with Evalustion 
land use data satellite images result 
1 3. Forest 8. The other area A 
2 8. Forest 8. The other area A 
3 8. The other area 6. Arterial road or railroad A 
4 3. Forest 8. The other area A 
5 5. Construction area 6. Arterial road or railroad A 
6 8. Other area 5. Construction area A 
T 11. Sea water 8. The other area A 
8 11. Sea water 6. Arterial road or railroad A 
9 8. The other area 5. Construction area A 
10 3. Sea water 8. The other area A 
11 8. The other area 5. Construction area A 
12 3. Forest 8. The other area A 
13 8. The other area 7. Golf course A 
14 3. Forest 5. Construction area A 
15 3. Forest 5. Construction area A 
16 3. Forest 8. The other area A 
17 8. The other area 7. Golf course A 
18 3. Forest 6. Arterial road or railroad A 
19 3. Forest 8. The other area B 
20 3. Forest 6. Arterial road or railroad A 
21 3. Forest 4. Wasted land A 
22 3. Forest 4. Wasted land B 
23 8. The other area 5. Construction area A 
24 3. Forest 8. The other area A 
25 8. The other area 5. Construction area A 
26 8. The other area 5. Construction area A 
27 3. Forest 5. Construction area A 
28 1. Rice field 8. The other area B 
29 3. Forest 8. The other area A 
30 8. The other area 5. Construction area A 
  
  
  
  
  
  
128