A protocol for assessment and integration of vegetation maps, with an application to spatial data sets from south-eastern Australia

Maps are important tools in natural resource management. Often, there may be multiple maps that represent the same resource, which have been constructed using very different philosophies and methods, at different scales, for different dates and areas. In such cases, conservation planners and other natural resource managers are faced with a choice of map that will best serve their decision making. However, the best available information for a given purpose is often a combination of data from a number of different source maps. In this paper we present a protocol for assessing and integrating multiple maps of vegetation for a particular area of interest. The protocol commences with a consideration of management or policy context and technical issues to determine the basic specifications for the map. It then defines and assesses a set of measurable attributes, representing the concepts of theme, accuracy, precision and currency, for all candidate maps available for compilation. The resulting ranks for accuracy, precision and currency are used to compute a suitability index, which is used to assemble a composite map from the most suitable candidate maps. The final step in the protocol is to display spatial patterns in thematic consistency, accuracy, precision and currency for the composite map. We demonstrate the application of the protocol by constructing a map that discriminates structurally intact native vegetation from cleared land for the whole of New South Wales, south-eastern Australia. The source data include 46 maps that cover various parts of the region at various scales and which were made at different dates using different methods. The protocol is an explicit and systematic method to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative data sets. It implements spatial integration in a way that promotes overall accuracy, precision and currency of map data. It also promotes transparent reporting of map limitations, to help map users accommodate risks of map errors in their decision making, and to inform priorities for future survey and mapping.

[1]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human‐modified landscapes , 2006 .

[2]  G. Takács,et al.  Restoration of peat-forming vegetation by rewetting species-poor fen grasslands , 2006 .

[3]  S. Fritz,et al.  A land cover map of South America , 2004 .

[4]  Mathieu Rouget,et al.  Current patterns of habitat transformation and future threats to biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems of the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa , 2003 .

[5]  Stefan Dullinger,et al.  A regional impact assessment of climate and land‐use change on alpine vegetation , 2003 .

[6]  Carlos Carroll,et al.  A Multicriteria Assessment of the Irreplaceability and Vulnerability of Sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem , 2002 .

[7]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  Using abiotic data for conservation assessments over extensive regions : quantitative methods applied across New South Wales, Australia , 2000 .

[8]  E. Maarel,et al.  Vegetation mapping: Theory, methods and case studies: Introduction , 1998 .

[9]  G. Toyohara,et al.  Succession of secondary forests affected by pine wilt disease in western Japan followed on vegetation maps , 1998 .

[10]  Andreal Lux,et al.  Two vegetation maps of the same island: floristic units versus structural units , 1998 .

[11]  S. Zerbe.  Potential natural vegetation: validity and applicability in landscape planning and nature conservation , 1998 .

[12]  Grid map analysis and its application for detecting vegetation changes in Japan , 1998 .

[13]  J. Moravec.  Reconstructed natural versus potential natural vegetation in vegetation mapping - a discussion of concepts , 1998 .

[14]  D. Richard Cutler,et al.  Assessing map accuracy in a remotely sensed, ecoregion-scale cover map , 1998 .

[15]  Stephen V. Stehman,et al.  Selecting and interpreting measures of thematic classification accuracy , 1997 .

[16]  J. Franklin.  Predictive vegetation mapping: geographic modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradients , 1995 .

[17]  Steven W. Running,et al.  Testing scale dependent assumptions in regional ecosystem simulations , 1994 .

[18]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Predicting Richness of Native, Rare, and Exotic Plants in Response to Habitat and Disturbance Variables across a Variegated Landscape , 1994 .

[19]  R. G. Wright,et al.  GAP ANALYSIS: A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO PROTECTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY , 1993 .

[20]  Michael N. DeMers.  Classification and Purpose in Automated Vegetation Maps , 1991 .

[21]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Spatial analysis of vegetation patterns in southern Western Australia: implications for reserve design , 1988 .

[22]  R. Congalton,et al.  Accuracy assessment: a user's perspective , 1986 .

[23]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[24]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .