Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19691
Title: Reliability of map accuracy assessments: A reply to Roff et al. (2016)
Contributor(s): Hunter, John T (author); Lechner, Alex M (author)
Publication Date: 2016
DOI: 10.1111/emr.12215
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19691
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.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: Ecological Management & Restoration, 17(2), p. 128-132
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia
Place of Publication: Richmond, Australia
ISSN: 1839-3330
1442-7001
Field of Research (FOR): 050209 Natural Resource Management
050202 Conservation and Biodiversity
050104 Landscape Ecology
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Statistics to Oct 2018: Visitors: 57
Views: 92
Downloads: 2
Appears in Collections:Journal Article

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

2
checked on Nov 30, 2018

Page view(s)

4
checked on Dec 29, 2018
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

 

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

 

Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.