2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.09.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy and congruency of three different digital land-use maps

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
42
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
42
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The overall accuracy in the reviewed papers varies between 68 and 98 %. This is in good agreement with the suggested range of 70-90 % by Bach et al (2006) in their review paper. The review also revealed that Landsat products, with 42 case studies out of the total 78, are the most commonly used imagery for land use land cover classification purposes.…”
Section: Accuracy Of Land Use Land Cover Mapssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The overall accuracy in the reviewed papers varies between 68 and 98 %. This is in good agreement with the suggested range of 70-90 % by Bach et al (2006) in their review paper. The review also revealed that Landsat products, with 42 case studies out of the total 78, are the most commonly used imagery for land use land cover classification purposes.…”
Section: Accuracy Of Land Use Land Cover Mapssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The absence of adequate field data sets is an important obstacle for sound, evidence-based water resource management decisions. The consequence of data scarcity is more severe in transboundary river basins where, apart from collection, the accessibility of data is hindered by political issues (Awulachew et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The forest data based on remote sensing used to describe habitat is thematically coarse and spatially uncertain especially at the finer scale (Reese et al 2003, Manton et al 2005. While for coarse habitat categories (e.g., managed forest age classes) and at larger spatial scales these data are quite reliable (e.g., Bach et al 2006), they may overestimate the habitat quality and connectivity for more specialized organisms (e.g., species linked to old-growth forest).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A first source of error can be introduced by the scale and the accuracy of different land cover maps (Ellis, 2004;Bach et al, 2006;Schmit et al, 2006;Verburg et al, 2006). The high relation between land use and N 2 O emissions highlights the importance of the land cover data when carrying out N 2 O emissions inventories (Plant, 1999;Matthews et al, 2000).…”
Section: G Vilain Et Al: Budget Of N 2 O Emissions At the Watershedmentioning
confidence: 99%