Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM) for 8.2 Million ha of Forestland, British Columbia, Canada

  • R.A. MacMillanEmail author
  • D.E. Moon
  • R.A. Coupé
  • N. Phillips
Part of the Progress in Soil Science book series (PROSOIL, volume 2)


Operational predictive ecosystem mapping (PEM) at a scale of 1:20,000 is described for an area of 8.2 million ha in the former Cariboo Forest Region of British Columbia (B.C.), Canada. Mapping was conducted over 5 years by a small team consisting of a knowledge engineer, a local ecological expert, a project technical monitor, a project manager and a number of short-term contractors. The total cost for all project activities was $2.8 million Canadian dollars or 34 cents per ha. The rate of progress was 2 million ha per year for the 2 person modeling team. The predictive map was assessed for accuracy in terms of its ability to provide reliable estimates of the proportions of ecological site types within small areas. Accuracy assessments were made using 345 km of independently classified ecological observations collected along 230 randomly selected, closed linear field traverses of 1.5 km total length. The final PEM maps achieved an average accuracy of 69% across the entire map area. We summarize and generalize our experiences by recasting them in the form of ten principles that we feel are applicable to all efforts to make predictive mapping operational. We hope that these principles will stimulate discussion among practitioners of digital soil mapping and may help others to consider how best to achieve their own success in operational digital soil mapping.


Operational predictive mapping Basic principles Expert knowledge Area-class maps Accuracy assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bockheim, J.G., Gennadiyev, A.N., Hammer, R.D., and Tandarich, J.P., 2005. Historical development of key concepts in pedology. Geoderma 124:23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burrough, P.A., 1989. Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation. Journal of Soil Science 40:477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eyton, J.R., 1991. Rate-of-change maps. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 18:87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hudson, B.D., 1992. The soil survey as a paradigm-based science. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56:836–841.Google Scholar
  5. Lagacherie, P., 2008. Digital soil mapping: A state of the art, pp. 3–14. In: Hartemink, A.E., McBratney, A.E., and Mendonça-Santos, M.L. (eds.), Digital Soil Mapping with Limited Data. Springer, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. MacMillan, R.A., Moon, D.E., and Coupé, R.A., 2007. Automated predictive ecological mapping in a forest region of B.C., Canada, 2001–2005. Geoderma 140:353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. MacMillan, R.A., Pettapiece, W.W., Nolan, S.C., and Goddard, T.W., 2000. A generic procedure for automatically segmenting landforms into landform elements using DEMs, heuristic rules and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 113(1):81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McBratney, A.B., Minasny, B., Cattle, S.R., and Vervoort, R.W., 2002. From pedotransfer functions to soil inference systems. Geoderma 109:41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meidinger, D.V., 2003. Protocol for accuracy assessment of ecosystem maps. Research Branch – British Columbia Ministry of Forests . Victoria, B.C. Technical Report 011.Google Scholar
  10. Moon, D., Dunlop, D., Iles, K., and Phillips, N., 2005. A protocol for assessing thematic map accuracy using small-area sampling. Research Branch – British Columbia Ministry of Forests Technical Report 023.Google Scholar
  11. Pojar, J., Klinka, K., and Meidinger, D.V., 1987. Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in British Columbia. Forest Ecological Management 22:119–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Quinn, P., Beven, K., Chevallier, P., and Planchon, O., 1991. The prediction of hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological modelling using digital terrain models. Hydrological Processes 5:59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Qi, F., Zhu, A.-X., Harrower, M., and Burt, J.E., 2006. Fuzzy soil mapping based on prototype category theory. Geoderma 136:774–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhu, A.X., Hudson, B., Burt, J., Lubich, K., and Simonson, D., 2001. Soil mapping using GIS, expert knowledge, and fuzzy logic. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65:1463–1472.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • R.A. MacMillan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • D.E. Moon
    • 3
  • R.A. Coupé
    • 4
  • N. Phillips
    • 5
  1. 1.LandMapper Environmental Solutions IncEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.ISRIC – World Soil InformationWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.CDT - Core Decision Technologies Inc.RichmondCanada
  4. 4.B.C. Ministry of Forests and RangeWilliams LakeCanada
  5. 5.Nona Phillips Forestry ConsultingWilliams LakeCanada

Personalised recommendations