Design, analysis, and inference for studies comparing thematic accuracy of classified remotely sensed data: a special case of map comparison

Assessing thematic map accuracy is a special type of map comparison that is frequently applied to remote sensing classification problems. For map comparisons in the accuracy assessment setting, one map represents the classified output and the other map represents the true or “reference” condition. Several articles in this special issue describe state-of-the-art map comparison analysis tools that could serve to quantify accuracy of a single map. However, accuracy assessment objectives generally extend beyond describing accuracy of a single map to comparing accuracy of several maps. Consequently, interest focuses on comparing map comparison measures when these measures are used to represent accuracy. The virtual workshop emphasizes the analysis component of map comparisons, but it is also important to examine the underlying study designs generating the data input into these analyses. The study designs for accuracy comparisons implemented in remote sensing practice often investigate only a single test site, thus limiting our ability to generalize the results of these accuracy comparisons. Map accuracy comparison studies can be designed to provide stronger generalizations by incorporating experimental design principles such as replication and blocking, and identifying an experimental unit appropriate for the application. It is also important to recognize the role of statistical hypothesis testing and inference for different objectives that motivate map accuracy comparisons. Deciding which of two maps to use for a particular site can be addressed by enumerative inference and does not require hypothesis testing. For the objective of a more general comparison of classification procedures, analytic inference is appropriate and hypothesis testing plays a more prominent role.

[1]  R. Kuehl Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis , 1999 .

[2]  Q. Guo,et al.  A comparison of standard and hybrid classifier methods for mapping hardwood mortality in areas affected by sudden oak death , 2004 .

[3]  Stephen V. Stehman,et al.  Statistical Rigor and Practical Utility in Thematic Map Accuracy Assessment , 2001 .

[4]  Pol Coppin,et al.  Comparative performance of a modified change vector analysis in forest change detection , 2005 .

[5]  Claude R. Duguay,et al.  Mapping lichen in a caribou habitat of Northern Quebec, Canada, using an enhancement_classification method and spectral mixture analysis , 2005 .

[6]  John F. Mustard,et al.  Identifying land cover variability distinct from land cover change: Cheatgrass in the Great Basin , 2005 .

[7]  Vanina Pasqualini,et al.  Use of SPOT 5 for mapping seagrasses: An application to Posidonia oceanica , 2005 .

[8]  David M. Rizzo,et al.  Sudden Oak Death , 2003 .

[9]  Timothy A. Warner,et al.  Spatial Classification of Orchards and Vineyards with High Spatial Resolution Panchromatic Imagery , 2005 .

[10]  A. Stewart Fotheringham,et al.  Some thoughts on inference in the analysis of spatial data , 2004, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[11]  P. Breeze +620. Price £65 R. Mead , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

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

[13]  Hamza Erol,et al.  A per‐field classification method based on mixture distribution models and an application to Landsat Thematic Mapper data , 2005 .

[14]  Paul Treitz,et al.  Comparison of function‐ and structure‐based schemes for classification of remotely sensed data , 2005 .

[15]  Robert H. Fraser,et al.  Signature extension through space for northern landcover classification: A comparison of radiometric correction methods , 2005 .

[16]  M. Goodchild,et al.  Environmental Modeling with GIS , 1994 .

[17]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edn. , 1990 .

[18]  D. Lu,et al.  Spectral Mixture Analysis of the Urban Landscape in Indianapolis with Landsat ETM+ Imagery , 2004 .

[19]  George C. Derringer,et al.  The design of experiments: Statistical principles for practical applications. , 1990 .

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

[21]  W. Edwards Deming,et al.  Some Theory of Sampling , 1950 .

[22]  S. Hurlbert Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments , 1984 .

[23]  R. Mead,et al.  The Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles for Practical Applications. , 1989 .

[24]  A. Goetz,et al.  A comparison of AVIRIS and Landsat for land use classification at the urban fringe , 2004 .

[25]  C. Özkan,et al.  Comparing feature extraction techniques for urban land‐use classification , 2005 .

[26]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.

[27]  Anne Puissant,et al.  The utility of texture analysis to improve per‐pixel classification for high to very high spatial resolution imagery , 2005 .

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

[29]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment , 2002 .

[30]  Paul M. Mather,et al.  Support vector machines for classification in remote sensing , 2005 .

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

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

[33]  Carl-Erik Särndal,et al.  Model Assisted Survey Sampling , 1997 .

[34]  Stephen V. Stehman,et al.  Basic probability sampling designs for thematic map accuracy assessment , 1999 .

[35]  Graciela Metternicht,et al.  The Performance of Fuzzy Operators on Fuzzy Classification of Urban Land Covers , 2005 .

[36]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1992 .