Reliability of map accuracy assessments: A reply to Roff et al. (2016)

Hunter, John T. and Lechner, Alex M. (2016) Reliability of map accuracy assessments: A reply to Roff et al. (2016). Ecological Management & Restoration, 17 (2). pp. 128-132. ISSN 1442-7001

Full content URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12215

Full text not available from this repository.

Item Type:Article
Item Status:Live Archive

Abstract

Roff et al. (Ecological Management and Restoration, 17, 2016, 000) provide a discussion of the criteria expected for the best approach to validation of mapping programs and uses Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17, 2016, 40) to highlight issues involved. While we support the general principles outlined, we note that the review does not apply the same standards to Sivertsen et al. (Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geodatabase Guide (Version 4.0). Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, Australia, 2011), the original document critiqued by Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17, 2016, 40). The Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17, 2016, 40) validation was based on a larger sample size, greater sampling within mapping units and greater representation of landscapes than Sivertsen et al. (Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geodatabase Guide (Version 4.0). Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, Australia, 2011). Survey and validation sites being placed along public roads and lands are common to both the general Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17, 2016, 40) validation methodologies. Thus, the criticisms of Roff et al. (Ecological Management and Restoration, 17, 2016, 000) of the Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17, 2016, 40) approach apply equally, if not more, to Sivertsen et al. (Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geodatabase Guide (Version 4.0). Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, Australia, 2011). We outline in the article how the Roff et al. (Ecological Management and Restoration, 17, 2016, 000) critique was selective and in some cases incorrect in its analysis of issues presented in Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17, 2016, 40) and did not apply the same criteria to their own work. We conclude by discussing future directions for validating and mapping vegetation communities.

Keywords:community definition, map validation, modelling, offsetting, plant community, types, vegetation mapping
Subjects:F Physical Sciences > F810 Environmental Geography
Divisions:College of Science > School of Geography
ID Code:42025
Deposited On:14 Oct 2020 16:19

Repository Staff Only: item control page