The classification of remotely sensed images such as aerial photographs or satellite sensor images for deriving ecosystem-related maps (e.g. land cover, land use, vegetation, soil) is generally based on clustering of spatial entities within a spectral space. In most cases, Boolean logic is applied in order to map landscape patterns. One major concern is that this implies an ability to divide the gradual variability of the Earth’s surface into a finite number of discrete non-overlapping classes, which are considered to be exhaustively defined and mutually exclusive. This type of approach is often inappropriate given the continuous nature of many ecosystem properties. Moreover, the standard data processing and image classification methods used will involve the loss of information as the continuous quantitative spectral information is degraded into a set of discrete classes. This leads to uncertainty in the products resulting from the use of remote sensing tools. It follows that any estimated ecosystem property has an associated error and/or uncertainty of unknown magnitude, and that the statistical quantification of uncertainty should be a core part of scientific research using remote sensing. In this paper we will review recent attempts to take explicitly into account uncertainty when mapping ecosystems.

Rocchini, D.; Foody, G.M.; Nagendra, H.; Ricotta, C.; Anand, M.; He, K.S.; Amici, V.; Kleinschmit, B.; Förster, M.; Schmidtlein, S.; Feilhauer, H.; Ghisla, A.; Metz, M.; Neteler, M.G. (2013). Uncertainty in ecosystem mapping by remote sensing. COMPUTERS & GEOSCIENCES, 50: 128-135. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2012.05.022 handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10449/21369

Uncertainty in ecosystem mapping by remote sensing

Rocchini, Duccio;Ghisla, Anne;Metz, Markus;Neteler, Markus Georg
2013-01-01

Abstract

The classification of remotely sensed images such as aerial photographs or satellite sensor images for deriving ecosystem-related maps (e.g. land cover, land use, vegetation, soil) is generally based on clustering of spatial entities within a spectral space. In most cases, Boolean logic is applied in order to map landscape patterns. One major concern is that this implies an ability to divide the gradual variability of the Earth’s surface into a finite number of discrete non-overlapping classes, which are considered to be exhaustively defined and mutually exclusive. This type of approach is often inappropriate given the continuous nature of many ecosystem properties. Moreover, the standard data processing and image classification methods used will involve the loss of information as the continuous quantitative spectral information is degraded into a set of discrete classes. This leads to uncertainty in the products resulting from the use of remote sensing tools. It follows that any estimated ecosystem property has an associated error and/or uncertainty of unknown magnitude, and that the statistical quantification of uncertainty should be a core part of scientific research using remote sensing. In this paper we will review recent attempts to take explicitly into account uncertainty when mapping ecosystems.
Uncertainty
Complexity
Ecosystem complexity
Ecosystem mapping
Fuzzy sets
Geosciences
Remote sensing
Incertezza
Complessità
Settore BIO/07 - ECOLOGIA
2013
Rocchini, D.; Foody, G.M.; Nagendra, H.; Ricotta, C.; Anand, M.; He, K.S.; Amici, V.; Kleinschmit, B.; Förster, M.; Schmidtlein, S.; Feilhauer, H.; Ghisla, A.; Metz, M.; Neteler, M.G. (2013). Uncertainty in ecosystem mapping by remote sensing. COMPUTERS & GEOSCIENCES, 50: 128-135. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2012.05.022 handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10449/21369
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2013 CG Rocchini et al.pdf

non disponibili

Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 594.6 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
594.6 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10449/21369
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 118
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 101
social impact