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 and Restoration, 17 2: 128-132. doi:10.1111/emr.12215


Author Hunter, John T.
Lechner, Alex M.
Title Reliability of map accuracy assessments: a reply to Roff et al. (2016)
Journal name Ecological Management and Restoration   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1442-8903
Publication date 2016-05
Year available 2016
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/emr.12215
Open Access Status Not Open Access
Volume 17
Issue 2
Start page 128
End page 132
Total pages 5
Place of publication Australia
Publisher John Wiley & Sons
Collection year 2017
Language eng
Formatted 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.
Keyword Community definition
Map validation
Modelling
Offsetting
Plant community types
Vegetation mapping
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
Sustainable Minerals Institute Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Fri, 17 Jun 2016, 13:40:00 EST by Dr Alex Lechner on behalf of Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining