A new 1 km global IIASA-IFPRI cropland percentage map for the baseline year 2005 has been developed which integrates a number of individual cropland maps at global to regional to national scales. The individual map products include existing global land cover maps such as GlobCover 2005 and MODIS v.5, regional maps such as AFRICOVER and national maps from mapping agencies and other organizations. The different products are ranked at the national level using crowdsourced data from Geo-Wiki to create a map that reflects the likelihood of cropland. Calibration with national and subnational crop statistics was then undertaken to distribute the cropland within each country and subnational unit. The new IIASA-IFPRI cropland product has been validated using very high-resolution satellite imagery via Geo-Wiki and has an overall accuracy of 82.4%. It has also been compared with the EarthStat cropland Global Change Biology (2015Biology ( ) 21, 1980Biology ( -1992Biology ( , doi: 10.1111 product and shows a lower root mean square error on an independent data set collected from Geo-Wiki. The first ever global field size map was produced at the same resolution as the IIASA-IFPRI cropland map based on interpolation of field size data collected via a Geo-Wiki crowdsourcing campaign. A validation exercise of the global field size map revealed satisfactory agreement with control data, particularly given the relatively modest size of the field size data set used to create the map. Both are critical inputs to global agricultural monitoring in the frame of GEOGLAM and will serve the global land modelling and integrated assessment community, in particular for improving land use models that require baseline cropland information. These products are freely available for downloading from the http://cropland.geo-wiki.org website.

Global land cover is one of the essential terrestrial baseline datasets available for ecosystem modeling, however uncertainty remains an issue. Tools such as Google Earth offer enormous potential for land cover validation. With an ever increasing amount of very fine spatial resolution images (up to 50 cm × 50 cm) available on Google Earth, it is becoming possible for every Internet user (including non remote sensing experts) to distinguish land cover features with a high degree of reliability. Such an approach is inexpensive and allows Internet users from any region of the world to get involved in this global validation exercise. The Geo-Wiki Project is a global network of volunteers who wish to help improve the quality of global land cover maps. Since large differences occur between existing global land cover maps, current ecosystem and land-use science lacks crucial accurate data (e.g., to determine the potential of additional agricultural land available to grow crops in Africa), volunteers are asked to review hotspot maps of global land cover disagreement and determine, based on what they actually see in Google Earth and their local knowledge, if the land cover maps are correct or incorrect. Their input is recorded in a OPEN ACCESS Remote Sens. 2009, 1 346 database, along with uploaded photos, to be used in the future for the creation of a new and improved hybrid global land cover map.

No abstract

There is currently a lack of in-situ environmental data for the calibration and validation of remotely sensed products and for the development and verification of models. Crowdsourcing is increasingly being seen as one potentially powerful way of increasing the supply of in-situ data but there are a number of concerns over the subsequent use of the data, in particular over data quality. This paper examined crowdsourced data from the Geo-Wiki crowdsourcing tool for land cover validation to determine whether there were significant differences in quality between the answers provided by experts and non-experts in the domain of remote sensing and therefore the extent to which crowdsourced data describing human impact and land cover can be used in further scientific research. The results showed that there was little difference between experts and non-experts in identifying human impact although results varied by land cover while experts were better than non-experts in identifying the land cover type. This suggests the need to create training materials with more examples in those areas where difficulties in identification were encountered, and to offer some method for contributors to reflect on the information they contribute, perhaps by feeding back the evaluations of their contributed data or by making additional training materials available. Accuracies were also found to be higher when the volunteers were more consistent in their responses at a given location and when they indicated higher confidence, which suggests that these additional pieces of information could be used in the development of robust measures of quality in the future.