What is the difference between two maps? A remote senser’s view

In remote sensing, thematic map comparison is often undertaken on a per-pixel basis and based upon measures of classification agreement. Here, the degree of agreement between two thematic maps, and so the difference between the pair, was evaluated through visual and quantitative analyses for two scenarios. Quantitative assessments were based on basic site-specific measures of agreement that are used widely in accuracy assessment (e.g. the overall percentage of pixels with the same class label in each of the two maps and the kappa coefficient of agreement) as well as an information theory based approach that allows the degree of mutual or shared information to be assessed even if different classification schemes have been used to produce the maps. The results indicated that in the first map comparison scenario, focused on labelling, there was a fair degree of correspondence between the maps but with an overall difference in information content of ∼42%. In the second comparison scenario, focused on change in time, considerable change had occurred with a change in class label for ∼42% of the pixels. It was also apparent that global assessments masked local scale changes.

[1]  Steffen Fritz,et al.  Comparison of land cover maps using fuzzy agreement , 2005, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Alex Hagen,et al.  Fuzzy set approach to assessing similarity of categorical maps , 2003, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[3]  Roger White,et al.  Hierarchical fuzzy pattern matching for the regional comparison of land use maps , 2001, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Peter F. Fisher,et al.  Integrating land-cover data with different ontologies: identifying change from inconsistency , 2004, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[5]  A. Comber,et al.  Assessment of a Semantic Statistical Approach to Detecting Land Cover Change Using Inconsistent Data Sets , 2004 .

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

[7]  Chandra Giri,et al.  A comparative analysis of the Global Land Cover 2000 and MODIS land cover data sets , 2005 .

[8]  S. Sader,et al.  Comparison of change-detection techniques for monitoring tropical forest clearing and vegetation regrowth in a time series , 2001 .

[9]  G. Foody Thematic map comparison: Evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy , 2004 .

[10]  Philip A. Townsend,et al.  A Quantitative Fuzzy Approach to Assess Mapped Vegetation Classifications for Ecological Applications , 2000 .

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

[12]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  On the compensation for chance agreement in image classification accuracy assessment, Photogram , 1992 .

[13]  Sucharita Gopal,et al.  Fuzzy set theory and thematic maps: accuracy assessment and area estimation , 2000, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[14]  R. G. Oderwald,et al.  Assessing Landsat classification accuracy using discrete multivariate analysis statistical techniques. , 1983 .

[15]  Robert Gilmore Pontius,et al.  Effect of Category Aggregation on Map Comparison , 2004, GIScience.

[16]  Bai-Lian Li,et al.  Event probability correlation analysis for comparison of two-phase ecological maps , 1993 .

[17]  R. Leemans,et al.  Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statistic , 1992 .

[18]  John T. Finn,et al.  Use of the Average Mutual Information Index in Evaluating Classification Error and Consistency , 1993, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[19]  Michael A. Wulder,et al.  Map comparison using spatial autocorrelation: an example using AVHRR derived land cover of Canada , 2004 .

[20]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data : principles and practices , 1998 .

[21]  R. G. Pontius Statistical Methods to Partition Effects of Quantity and Location During Comparison of Categorical Maps at Multiple Resolutions , 2002 .

[22]  Paula Couto,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of spatial simulation models , 2003 .

[23]  Barry Boots,et al.  Categorical maps, comparisons, and confidence , 2006, J. Geogr. Syst..