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

John T. Hunter, Alex M. Lechner

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)128-132
Number of pages5
JournalEcological Management & Restoration
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Community definition
  • Map validation
  • Modelling
  • Offsetting
  • Plant community types
  • Vegetation mapping

Cite this