Journal of Geographical Systems

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 119–130

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

Original article


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.


Accuracy Agreement Mutual information Classification Kappa coefficient Confusion matrix 


  1. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Edu Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Comber A, Fisher P, Wadsworth R (2004a) Integrating land-cover data with different ontologies: identifying change from inconsistency. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 18:691–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Comber A, Fisher P, Wadsworth R (2004b) Assessment of a semantic statistical approach to detecting land cover change using inconsistent data sets. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70:931–938Google Scholar
  4. Congalton RG, Green K (1999) Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  5. Congalton RG, Oderwald RG, Mead RA (1983) Assessing Landsat classification accuracy using discrete multivariate analysis statistical techniques. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 49:1671–1678Google Scholar
  6. Couto P (2003) Assessing the accuracy of spatial simulation models. Ecol Model 167:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csillag F, Boots B (2006) Categorical maps, comparisons, and confidence: results from a virtual workshop. What is the difference between two maps? A remote senser’s view (this issue)Google Scholar
  8. Finn JT (1993) Use of average mutual information index in evaluating classification error and consistency. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 7:349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foody GM (1992) On the compensation for chance agreement in image classification accuracy assessment. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 58:1459–1460Google Scholar
  10. Foody GM (2004) Thematic map comparison: evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70:627–633Google Scholar
  11. Fritz S, See L (2006) Comparison of land cover maps using fuzzy agreement. Int J Geogr Inf Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Giri C, Zhu Z, Reed B (2004) A comparative analysis of the Global Land Cover 2000 and MODIS land cover data sets. Remote Sens Environ 94:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hagen A (2003) Fuzzy set approach to assessing similarity of categorical maps. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes DJ, Sader SA (2001) Comparison of change-detection techniques for monitoring tropical forest clearing and vegetation regrowth in a time series. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67:1067–1075Google Scholar
  15. Kew NR (1996) Information-theoretic measures for assessment and analysis in image classification. In: Binaghi E, Brivio PA, Rampini A (eds) Soft computing in remote sensing data analysis. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 173–180Google Scholar
  16. Li B, Chu Y, Loh DK (1993) Event probability correlation analysis for comparison of two-phase ecological maps. Ecol Model 69:287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Monserud RA, Leemans R (1992) Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statistic. Ecol Model 62:275–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pontius RG (2002) Statistical methods to partition effects of quantity and location during comparison of categorical maps at multiple resolutions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 68:1041–1049Google Scholar
  19. Pontius RG, Malizia NR (2004) Effect of category aggregation on map comparison. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3234:251–268Google Scholar
  20. Power C, Simms A, White R (2001) Hierachical fuzzy pattern matching for the regional comparison of land use maps. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15:77–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stehman SV (1997) Selecting and interpreting measures of thematic classification accuracy. Remote Sens Environ 62:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Townsend PA (2000) A quantitative fuzzy approach to assess mapped vegetation classifications for ecological applications. Remote Sens Environ 72:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turk G (2002) Map evaluation and “chance correction”. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 68:123Google Scholar
  24. Woodcock CE, Gopal S (2000) Fuzzy set theory and thematic maps: accuracy assessment and area estimation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wulder MA, Boots B, Seemann D, White JC (2004) Map comparison using spatial autocorrelation: an example using AVHRR derived land cover of Canada. Can J Remote Sens 30:573–592Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of GeographyUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations