Can anyone cast light on the accuracy assessment of the Mathew Hansen dataset?
What will be the proper way of using this data for research?
I am asking this since I know that any of the remote sensing classification work without ground truthing/accuracy assessment is useless - is my understanding correct?
I do not find anything on the accuracy assessment of this data on the internet. Even not the methodology for this data though a bit very uncomplete discussion at Methodology for Hansen classification of Global Forest Watch?
Answer
The actual article referenced in your last link doesn't contain any information about error or accuracy. However, in the fine print, there is a link to supplemental materials and methods. You can download the pdf here.
I didn't read the whole article, but the first search on "error" yielded this paragraph:
Estimated error matrices and accuracy summary statistics are shown in Tab. S5. For loss, user’s and producer’s accuracies are balanced and greater than 80% per climate domain and the globe as a whole. Results for forest gain indicate a possible underestimate of tropical forest gain with a user’s accuracy of 82% and a producer’s accuracy of 48%. However, the 95% confidence interval for the bias of tropical forest gain (expressed as a % of land area) is 0.01% to 0.35%, indicating high uncertainty in the validation estimate. A possible overestimate of boreal forest gain is also indicated. Overall, the comparison of individually interpreted sample sites with the algorithm output illustrates a robust product at the 120m pixel scale.
Page 16 contains Table S5, which lists Accuracy assessment of 2000 to 2012 forest loss and gain at global and climate domain scales.
There are similar tables for Tropical, Subtropical, Temperate, and Boreal Climate domains on pages 16-20.
No comments:
Post a Comment