Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Categorical maps, comparisons, and confidence

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Geographical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The comparison of categorical maps is a common problem in several different contexts. Differences between categorical maps can be characterized and measured in a variety of ways. In 2004 we invited individuals from remote sensing, geographical information analysis, spatial modelling, and landscape ecology to participate in a virtual workshop in order to compare strategies for comparison. This revealed that the key dimensions of comparison relate to (1) the map characteristics considered, (2) the nature of the comparison, (3) the handling of geographical space, (4) the units of computed measures, and (5) the tests of significance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Comber A, Fisher P, Wadsworth R (2005) What is land cover? Environ Plann B 32:199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congalton RG, Macleod RD (1994) Change detection accuracy assessment on the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Pilot Study. In: Proceedings of the international symposium of the spatial accuracy of natural resources data bases. American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Williamsburg, pp 78–87

  • Congalton RG (ed) (1994) International symposium on the spatial accuracy of natural resources data bases. ASPRS, Bethesda

  • Csillag F, Boots B (2004) Comparing maps as spatial processes. In: Fisher P (ed) Developments in spatial data handling. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 641–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Csillag F, Boots B (2005) A framework for statistical inferential decisions in spatial pattern analysis. Can Geogr 49:172–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demidenko E (2004) Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for image comparison. In: Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2004, Pt 4 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3046. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 933–939

  • Dubois G, Malczewski J, DeCort M (eds) (1998) Special issue on spatial interpolation comparison. J Geogr Inf Decision Anal 2(1–2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois G, Galmarini S (2005) Introduction to the spatial interpolation comparison (SIC) 2004 Exercise and presentation of the datasets. Applied GIS: 1 DOI:10.2104/ag050009

  • Dungan JL, Perry JN, Dale MRT, Legendre P, Citron-Pousty S, Fortin M-J, Jakomulska A, Miriti M, Rosenberg MS (2002) A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis. Ecography 25:626–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foody GM (2002) Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 80:185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin M-J, Boots B, Csillag F, Remmel T (2003) On the role of spatial stochastic models in understanding landscape indices in ecology. Oikos 102:203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RM, Smith GM, Devereux BJ (2003) The characterisation and measurement of land cover change through remote sensing: problems in operational applications? Int J Appl Earth Observ 4:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong P, Xu B (2003) Remote sensing of forests over time: change types, methods, and opportunities. In: Wulder MA, Franklin SE (eds) Remote sensing of forest environments. Kluwer, Boston, pp 301–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen A (2003) Fuzzy set approach to assessing similarity of categorical maps. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17:235–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove W, Hoffman FM, Schwartz PM (2002) A fractal landscape realizer for generating synthetic maps. Conserv Ecol 6(1):2

    Google Scholar 

  • Herold M, Cuclelis H, Clarke KC (2005) The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Comput Environ Urban Syst 29:369–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoaglin D.C., Velleman P.F. 1995. A critical look at some analyses of major-league baseball salaries. Am Stat 49:277–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1993) A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecol 8:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1994) A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75:2446–2455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1995) On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73:280–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metternicht G (1999) Change detection assessment using fuzzy sets and remotely sensed data: an application of topographic map revision. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 54:221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patil GP, Balbus J, Biging G, Jaja J, Myers WL, Taille C (2004) Multiscale advanced raster map analysis system: definition, design and development. Environ Ecol Stat 11:113–138

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pontius RG Jr (2000) Quantification error versus location error in comparison of categorical maps. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 66:1011–1016

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontius RG Jr (2002) Statistical methods to partition effects of quantity and location during comparison of categorical maps at multiple resolutions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 68:1041–1049

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontius RG Jr, Malizia NR (2004) Effect of category aggregation on map comparison. In: Egenhofer MJ, Freksa C, Miller HJ (eds) GIScience 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3234. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 251–268

  • Pontius RG Jr, Shusas E, McEachern M (2004) Detecting important categorical land changes while accounting for persistence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101:251–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power C, Simms A, White R (2001) Hierarchical fuzzy pattern matching for the regional comparison of land use maps. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15:77–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prenzel B (2004) Remote sensing-based quantification of land-cover and land-use change for planning. Progress Plann 61:281–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remmel TK, Csillag F (2003) When are two landscape pattern indices significantly different? J Geogr Syst 5:331–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remmel TK, Csillag F, Mitchell S, Wulder M (2005) Integration of forest inventory and satellite imagery: a Canadian status assessment and research issues. For Ecol Manage 207:405–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards JA, Xiuping J (1999) Remote sensing digital image analysis: an introduction. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogan J, Franklin J, Roberts DA (2002) A comparison of methods for monitoring multitemporal vegetation change using thematic mapper imagery. Remote Sens Environ 80:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson PA (2002) Change detection thresholds for remotely sensed images. J Geogr Syst 4:85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JH, Wickham JD, Stehman SV (2002) Impacts of patch size and land-cover heterogeneity on thematic image classification accuracy. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 68:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Stehman SV (1997) Selecting and interpreting measures of thematic classification accuracy. Remote Sens Environ 62:77–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehman SV (1999) Comparing thematic maps based on map value. Int J Remote Sens 20:2347–2366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trani MK, Giles RH (1999) An analysis of deforestation: metrics used to describe pattern change. For Ecol Manage 114:459–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A (2004) Land use change modelling: current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal 61:309–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber D, Englund D (1992) Evaluation and comparison of spatial interpolators. Math Geol 24:381–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White R, Engelen G, Uljee I (1997) The use of constrained cellular automata for high-resolution modelling of urban land-use dynamics. Environ Plann B 24:323–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the GEOIDE Network of Centres of Excellence (Canada) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada, N2L 3C5

    Barry Boots

  2. Department of Geography, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Rd, Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5L 1C6

    Ferko Csillag

Authors
  1. Barry Boots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ferko Csillag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry Boots.

Additional information

Ferko Csillag deceased

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boots, B., Csillag, F. Categorical maps, comparisons, and confidence. J Geograph Syst 8, 109–118 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-006-0018-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-006-0018-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation