Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Quantifying uncertainty in remotely sensed land cover maps

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Remotely sensed land cover maps are increasingly used as inputs into environmental simulation models whose outputs inform decisions and policy-making. Risks associated with these decisions are dependent on model output uncertainty, which is in turn affected by the uncertainty of land cover inputs. This article presents a method of quantifying the uncertainty that results from potential mis-classification in remotely sensed land cover maps. In addition to quantifying uncertainty in the classification of individual pixels in the map, we also address the important case where land cover maps have been upscaled to a coarser grid to suit the users’ needs and are reported as proportions of land cover type. The approach is Bayesian and incorporates several layers of modelling but is straightforward to implement. First, we incorporate data in the confusion matrix derived from an independent field survey, and discuss the appropriate way to model such data. Second, we account for spatial correlation in the true land cover map, using the remotely sensed map as a prior. Third, spatial correlation in the mis-classification characteristics is induced by modelling their variance. The result is that we are able to simulate posterior means and variances for individual sites and the entire map using a simple Monte Carlo algorithm. The method is applied to the Land Cover Map 2000 for the region of England and Wales, a map used as an input into a current dynamic carbon flux model.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.ceh.ac.uk/LandCoverMap2000.html.

  2. http://www.ceh.ac.uk/documents/lcm2000_product_versions_and_formats.pdf.

References

  • Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Cafeo J, Garcia-Donato G, Liu F, Palomo J, Parthasarathy RJ, Paulo R, Sacks J, Walsh D (2007) Computer model validation with functional output. Ann Stat 35(5):1874–1906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besag JE (1986) On the statistical analysis of dirty pictures. J R Stat Soc B 48:259–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti S, O’Hagan A (2010) Bayesian emulation of complex multi-output and dynamic computer models. J Stat Plan Inference 140(3):640–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruin S (2000) Predicting the areal extent of land-cover types using classified imagery and geostatistics. Remote Sens Environ 74:387–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denham R, Mengersen K, Witte C (2009) Bayesian analysis of thematic map accuracy data. Remote Sens Environ 113:371–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divino F, Frigessi A, Green PJ (2000) Penalized pseudolikelihood inference in spatial interaction models with covariates. Scand J Stat 27:445–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eroğlu H, Çakir G, Sivrikaya F, Akay AE (2010) Using high resolution images and elevation data in classifying erosion risks of bare soil areas in the Hatila Valley Natural Protected Area, Turkey. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:699–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foody GM (2002) Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 80:185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foody GM (2007) The evaluation and comparison of thematic maps derived from remote sensing. In: 7th international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment and environmental sciences, Lisbon, pp 18–31

  • Frigessi A, Stander J (1994) Informative priors for the Bayesian classification of satellite images. J Am Stat Assoc 89(426):703–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RM, Smith GM, Sanderson JM, Hill RA, Thomson AG (2002) Countryside survey 2000, Module 7. Land Cover Map 2000. Final Report, Technical Report

  • Fuller RM, Cox R, Clarke RT, Rother P, Hill RA, Smith GM, Thomson AG, Brown NJ, Howard DC, Stott AP (2005) The UK Land Cover Map 2000: planning, construction and calibration of a remotely sensed, user-orientated map of broad habitats. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 7:202–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geman S, Geman D (1984) Stochastic relation, the Gibbs distribution and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 6(6):721–741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Giri C, Zhu Z, Reed B (2005) A comparative analysis of the Global Land Cover 2000 and MODIS land cover data sets. Remote Sens Environ 94:123–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green EJ, Strawderman WE (1994) Determining the accuracy of thematic maps. The Statistician 43(1):77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen M, Reed B (2000) A comparison of the IGBP DISCover and University of Maryland 1 km global land cover products. Int J Remote Sens 21:1365–1373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Nouger M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (2001) IPCC(2001) climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, IPCC

  • Huang Q, Cai Y (2007) Simulation of land use change using GIS-based stochastic model: the case study of Shiqian County, Southwestern China. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21:419–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang Y, Clark MP, Rajagopalan B (2011) Use of daily precipitation uncertainties in streamflow simulation and forecast. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 25:957–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: Synthesis Report

  • Jung M, Henkel K, Herold M, Churkina G (2006) Exploiting synergies of global land cover products for carbon cycle modelling. Remote Sens Environ 101(4):534–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy M, O’Hagan A, Anderson CW, Lomas M, Woodward FI, Heinemeyer A, Gosling JP (2008) Quantifying uncertainty in the biospheric carbon flux for England and Wales. J R Stat Soc A 171(1):109–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein R, Press SJ (1989) Contextual Bayesian classification of remotely sensed data. Commun Stat A 18:3177–3202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein R, Press SJ (1990a) Bayesian classification of remotely sensed data when training data is part of the scene. Rev Bras Probab Estat 4:43–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein R, Press SJ (1990b) Bayesian contextual classification with neighbors correlated with training data, Bayesian and likelihood methods in statistics and econometrics: essays in Honor of George A. Bernard, pp 337–355

  • Kriauciuniene J, Jakimavicius D, Sarauskien D, Kaliatka T (2012) Estimation of uncertainty sources in the projections of Lithuanian river runoff. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. doi:10.1007/s00477-012-0608-7

  • Li W, Zhang C (2011) Land-cover classification with uncertainty assessment based on expert-interpreted pixels from remotely sensed imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 49(8):2983–2992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maselli F, Conese C, Petkov L (1994) Use of probability entropy for the estimation and graphical representation of the accuracy of maximum likelihood classifications. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 49(2):13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayaux P, Eva H, Gallego J, Strahler AH, Herold M, Agrawal S, Naumov S, De Miranda EE, Di Bella CM, Ordoyne C, Kopin Y, Roy P (2006) Validation of the Global Land Cover 2000 map. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 44(7):1728–1739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCallum I, Obersteiner M, Nilsson S, Shivdenko A (2006) A spatial comparison of four satellite derived 1 km global land cover datasets. Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 8:246–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagan A (2006) Bayesian analysis of computer code outputs: a tutorial. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:1290–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quaife T, Quegan S, Disney M, Lewis P, Lomas M, Woodward FI (2008) The impact of errors in satellite-derived land cover on estimates of biosphere carbon fluxes. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 22:GB4016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks J, Welsh WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4:409–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider S, Lane J (2005) Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: much has been learned—still a long and bumpy road ahead. Integr Assess J 5(1):41–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumar B, Christako G (2011) Climate: patterns, changes and impacts. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 25:443–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehman SV, Wickham JD, Smith JH, Yang L (2003) Accuracy of the 1992 National Land-Cover Data for the eastern United States: statistical methodology and regional results. Remote Sens Environ 86:500–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storvik G, Fjortoft R, Solberg AA (2005) A Bayesian approach to classification of multiresolution remote sensing data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 43(3):539–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Switzer P (1980) Extensions of linear discriminant analysis for statistical classification of remotely sensed satellite imagery. Math Geol 12:367–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Haining R, Zhidong C (2010) Sample surveying to estimate the mean of a heterogeneous surface: reducing the error variance through zoning. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 24(4):523–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidong L, Zhang C, Dey DK (2010) Estimating threshold-exceeding probability maps of environmental variables with Markov chain random fields. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:1113–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems P (2001) Stochastic description of the rainfall input errors in lumped hydrological models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 15:132–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward FI, Lomas MR (2004) Vegetation dynamics—simulating responses to climatic change. Biol Rev 79(3):643–670

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu DD (2011) Introduction to the special SERRA issue on “risks, uncertainties and the environment”. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 25:301–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the NERC Centre for Terrestrial Carbon Dynamics and the NERC National Centre for Earth Observation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Cripps.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cripps, E., O’Hagan, A. & Quaife, T. Quantifying uncertainty in remotely sensed land cover maps. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27, 1239–1251 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-012-0660-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-012-0660-3

Keywords

Navigation