Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of patch characteristics and within patch heterogeneity on the accuracy of urban land cover estimates from visual interpretation

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landscape ecology links landscape pattern to ecological function. Achieving this goal hinges on accurate depiction and quantification of pattern, which is frequently done by visually interpreting remotely sensed imagery. Therefore, understanding both the accuracy of that interpretation and what influences its accuracy is crucial. In addition, imagery is pixel-based but landscape pattern exists, more realistically, as irregularly shaped patches. Patches may contain only one feature type such as trees, but, in some landscapes, patches may contain several different types of features such as trees and buildings. Using a patch-based approach, this paper investigates two types of variables—whole-patch and within-patch—that are hypothesized to influence the accuracy of visually estimating the cover of features within patches. A highly accurate reference map, obtained from object-based classification, was used to evaluate the accuracy of visual estimates of cover within patches. The effects of the variables on the accuracy of these estimates were tested using logistic regressions and multimodel inferential procedures. Though all variables significantly affected the accuracy, the within-patch configuration of features is the most significant factor. In general, errors of cover estimates are more likely to occur when patches are smaller or have more complex shapes, and features within a patch are (1) more diverse; (2) more fragmented; (3) more complex in shape; and (4) physically less connected. These results provide an important first step towards a quantitative, spatially explicit model for predicting error of cover estimates and determining under what circumstances estimation error is most likely to occur.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kaidó, Budapest

  • Allard A, Nilsson B, Pramborg K, Ståhl G, Sundquist S (2003) Manual for aerial photo interpretation in the national inventory of landscapes in Sweden NILS. Department of Forest Resource Management and Geomatics, Umeå

    Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2000) Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics. Landsc Urban Plan 50:43–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaschke T (2010) Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 65(1):2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Schwarz K (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Front Ecol Environ 5:80–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherrill A, McClean C (1995) An investigation of uncertainty in field habitat mapping and the implications for detecting land cover change. Landscape Ecol 10(1):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clehmann CER, Prior LD, Bowman DMJS (2009) Decadal dynamics of tree cover in an Australian tropical savanna. Austral Ecol 34:601–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congalton RG, Mead RA (1983) A quantitative method to test for consistency and correctness in photointerpretation. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 49(1):69–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis EC, Wang H (2006) Estimating area errors for fine-scale feature-based ecological mapping. Int J Remote Sens 27(21):4731–4749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis EC, Wang H, Xiao H, Peng K, Liu XP, Li SC, Ouyang H, Cheng X, Yang LZ (2006) Measuring long-term ecological changes in densely populated landscapes using current and historical high resolution imagery. Remote Sens Environ 100(4):457–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham RJ, Fairfax RJ (2002) Aerial photography for assessing vegetation change: a review of applications and the relevance of findings for Australian vegetation history. Aust J Bot 50:415–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham RJ, Fairfax RJ (2003) Assessing woody vegetation cover change in north-west Australian savanna using aerial photography. Int J Wildl Fire 12(4):359–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham RJ, Fairfax RJ (2007) Effect of photoscale, interpreter bias and land type on woody crown-cover estimates from aerial photography. Aust J Bot 55:457–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham RJ, Fairfax RJ, Holman JE, Whitehead PJ (2002) Quantitative assessment of vegetation structural attributes from aerial photography. Int J Remote Sens 23(11):2293–2317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S, Theuray N, Lindley SJ (2008) Characterising the urban environment of UK cities and towns: a template for landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 87:210–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groom G, Mucher CA, Ihse M, Wrbka T (2006) Remote sensing in landscape ecology: experiences and perspectives in a European context. Landscape Ecol 21:391–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen J, Nilsson B, Mäki AH, Allard A, Moen J, Holm S, Sundquist S, Olsson H (2008) Aerial photo interpretation for change detection of treeline ecotones in the Swedish mountains. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Umeå

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L (2007) Adequate data of known accuracy are critical to advancing the field of landscape ecology. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 11–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Wu J (2007) Landscape pattern analysis: key issues and challenges. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 39–61

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lillesand TM, Kiefer RW (2004) Remote sensing and image interpretation. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. Accessed 6 April 2012

  • Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78(3):691–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paine DP, Kiser JD (2003) Aerial photography and image interpretation, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards JA, Jia X (2006) Remote sensing digital image analysis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker NH (1996) Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao G, Wu J (2008) On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis using remote sensing data. Landscape Ecol 23:505–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao G, Liu D, Zhao G (2001) Relationships of image classification accuracy and variation of landscape statistics. Can J Remote Sens 27(1):33–43

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith JH, Stehman SV, Wickham JD, Yang LM (2003) Effects of landscape characteristics on land-cover class accuracy. Remote Sens Environ 84:342–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ståhl G, Allard A, Esseen P, Glimskär A, Ringvall A, Svensson J, Sundquist S, Christensen P, Torell Å, Högström M, Lagerqvist K, Marklund L, Nilsson B, Inghe O (2011) National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS)—scope, design, and experiences from establishing a multiscale biodiversity monitoring system. Environ Monit Assess 173:579–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evolution Syst 36:319–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenmakers EJ, Farrell S (2004) AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon Bull Rev 11(1):192–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou W, Troy A (2008) An object-oriented approach for analyzing and characterizing urban landscape at the parcel level. Int J Remote Sens 29(11):3119–3135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou W, Huang G, Troy A, Cadenasso ML (2009) Object-based land cover classification of shaded areas in high spatial resolution imagery of urban areas: a comparison study. Remote Sens Environ 113(8):1769–1777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou W, Schwarz K, Cadenasso ML (2010) Mapping urban landscape heterogeneity: agreement between visual interpretation and digital classification approaches. Landscape Ecol 25(1):53–67

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation LTER program (grant DEB 042376), and CAREER program (DEB-0844778).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shuangqinglu 18, Beijing, 100085, China

    Weiqi Zhou

  2. Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Mail Stop 1, 1210 PES, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    M. L. Cadenasso

Authors
  1. Weiqi Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. L. Cadenasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weiqi Zhou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhou, W., Cadenasso, M.L. Effects of patch characteristics and within patch heterogeneity on the accuracy of urban land cover estimates from visual interpretation. Landscape Ecol 27, 1291–1305 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9780-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9780-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation