Skip to main content

Spatially Variable Thematic Accuracy: Beyond the Confusion Matrix

  • Chapter
Spatial Uncertainty in Ecology

Abstract

An essential aspect of the increasing sophistication of ecological models is the use of spatially explicit inputs and outputs. Thus, the challenge of documenting the uncertainty of model parameters must expand to include the distribution of error across the surface of maps, satellite images, and other ecological data that are keyed by geographic location. It has become more common to report the overall accuracy of map data sets. Support for such accuracy statements is seen in the descriptive attributes that are defined in file format conventions (e.g., the spatial data transfer standard, SDTS; FGDC 1998). These attributes include documentation of the root mean square error for positional accuracy and error rates associated with the delineation of specific map features. The probability of mapping errors, however, is generally not consistent across the surface of a map data set (Congalton 1988a; Steele et al. 1998), and standard methods have not been adopted for presenting the spatial distribution of error in thematic maps. The confusion matrix is the most commonly accepted method for assessing the accuracy of thematic maps, but it is entirely devoid of spatial context. This chapter addresses shortfalls in various approaches to predicting the distribution of error in thematic maps derived from image data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bartlett, D., M. Hardisky, R. Johnson, M. Gross, V. Klemas, and J. Hartman. 1988. Continental scale variability in vegetation reflectance and its relationship to canopy morphology. International Journal of Remote Sensing 43:595–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belward, A., and T. Loveland. 1995. The IGBP-DIS 1-km land cover project: remote sensing in action. Pages 1099–1106 in Proceedings of the twenty first annual conference of the remote sensing society. The Remote Sensing Society, The University of Nottingham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierkins, M., and P. Burrough. 1993a. The indicator approach to categorical soil data. I. Theory. Journal of Soil Science 44:361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierkins, M., and P. Burrough. 1993b. The indicator approach to categorical soil data. II. Application to mapping and land use suitability analysis. Journal of Soil Science 44:369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. 1981. Spatial correlation effects upon accuracy of supervised classification of land cover. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 47:355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, A., and J. Ord. 1973. Spatial autocorrelation. Pion Limited, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Congalton, R. 1988a. Using spatial autocorrelation analysis to explore the errors in maps generated from remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54:587–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congalton, R. 1988b. A comparison of sampling schemes used in generating error matrices for assessing the accuracy of maps generated from remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54:593–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenstermaker, L. 1994. Remote sensing thematic accuracy assessment: a compendium. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 1998. Spatial data transfer standard. FGDC-STD-002-1998. Computer Products Office, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, P. 1996. Visualization of the reliability in classified remotely sensed images. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60:905–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, P., and M. Langford. 1996. Modeling sensitivity to accuracy in classified imagery: a study of areal interpolation by dasymetric mapping. Professional Geographer 48:299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, P. 1998. Improving error models for digital elevation models. Pages 55–61 in R. Jeansoulin and M.F. Goodchild, eds. Data quality in geographic information: from error to uncertainty. Hermes, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foody, G. 1999. The continuum of classification fuzziness in thematic mapping. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65:443–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Hernandez J.J., and R.M. Srivastava. 1990a. ISIM3D: an ANSI C three-dimensional multiple indicator conditional simulation program. Computers and Geosciences 16:395–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Hernandez J.J., and R.M. Srivastava. 1990b. ISIM3D (version 2.5), an ANSI C program downloaded from ftp://mundo.dihma.upv.es/pub/gcosim3d/.

  • Labovitz, M. 1984. The influence of autocorrelation in signature extraction—an example from a geobotanical investigation of Cotter Basin, Montana. International Journal of Remote Sensing 50:315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loveland, T.R., Z. Zhu, D.O. Ohlen, J.F. Brown, B.C. Reed, and L. Yang. 1999. An analysis of the global land cover characterization process. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65(9): 1021–1032.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGwire, K. 1992. Analyst variability in the labeling of unsupervised classifications. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58:1673–1677.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGwire, K., J. Estes, and J. Star. 1996. A comparison of maximum likelihood-based supervised classification strategies. GeoCarto 11:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, R., J. Krummel, R. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B. Jackson, D. DeAngelis, et al. 1995. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1:153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters, K., R. O’Neill, C. Hunsaker, J. Wickham, D. Yankee, S. Timmins, et al. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10:23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, 1993. Gap analysis — a geographical approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, B., C. Winne, and R. Remond. 1998. Estimation and mapping of misclassification probabilities for thematic land cover maps. Remote Sensing of Environment 66:192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veregin, H. 1989. A taxonomy of error in spatial databases. Technical paper 89-12. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barbara, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McGwire, K.C., Fisher, P. (2001). Spatially Variable Thematic Accuracy: Beyond the Confusion Matrix. In: Hunsaker, C.T., Goodchild, M.F., Friedl, M.A., Case, T.J. (eds) Spatial Uncertainty in Ecology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0209-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0209-4_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98889-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-0209-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics