Skip to main content
Log in

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

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

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Edu Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comber A, Fisher P, Wadsworth R (2004a) Integrating land-cover data with different ontologies: identifying change from inconsistency. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 18:691–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 70:931–938

    Google Scholar 

  • Congalton RG, Green K (1999) Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Congalton RG, Oderwald RG, Mead RA (1983) Assessing Landsat classification accuracy using discrete multivariate analysis statistical techniques. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 49:1671–1678

    Google Scholar 

  • Couto P (2003) Assessing the accuracy of spatial simulation models. Ecol Model 167:181–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Finn JT (1993) Use of average mutual information index in evaluating classification error and consistency. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 7:349–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foody GM (1992) On the compensation for chance agreement in image classification accuracy assessment. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 58:1459–1460

    Google Scholar 

  • Foody GM (2004) Thematic map comparison: evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70:627–633

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz S, See L (2006) Comparison of land cover maps using fuzzy agreement. Int J Geogr Inf Sci (in press)

  • 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 94:123–132

    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 

  • 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 67:1067–1075

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 173–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Li B, Chu Y, Loh DK (1993) Event probability correlation analysis for comparison of two-phase ecological maps. Ecol Model 69:287–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monserud RA, Leemans R (1992) Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statistic. Ecol Model 62:275–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontius RG, Malizia NR (2004) Effect of category aggregation on map comparison. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3234:251–268

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend PA (2000) A quantitative fuzzy approach to assess mapped vegetation classifications for ecological applications. Remote Sens Environ 72:253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turk G (2002) Map evaluation and “chance correction”. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 68:123

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock CE, Gopal S (2000) Fuzzy set theory and thematic maps: accuracy assessment and area estimation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:573–592

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Ferko Csillag and Barry Boots for organising the project and the referees for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giles M. Foody.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foody, G.M. What is the difference between two maps? A remote senser’s view. J Geograph Syst 8, 119–130 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-006-0023-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-006-0023-z

Keywords

Navigation