Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19691
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHunter, John Ten
dc.contributor.authorLechner, Alex Men
dc.date.accessioned2016-12-08T10:29:00Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationEcological Management & Restoration, 17(2), p. 128-132en
dc.identifier.issn1442-8903en
dc.identifier.issn1442-7001en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19691-
dc.description.abstractRoff 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.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Asiaen
dc.relation.ispartofEcological Management & Restorationen
dc.titleReliability of map accuracy assessments: A reply to Roff et al. (2016)en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/emr.12215en
dc.subject.keywordsNatural Resource Managementen
dc.subject.keywordsLandscape Ecologyen
dc.subject.keywordsConservation and Biodiversityen
local.contributor.firstnameJohn Ten
local.contributor.firstnameAlex Men
local.subject.for2008050209 Natural Resource Managementen
local.subject.for2008050202 Conservation and Biodiversityen
local.subject.for2008050104 Landscape Ecologyen
local.subject.seo2008960501 Ecosystem Assessment and Management at Regional or Larger Scalesen
local.subject.seo2008960604 Environmental Management Systemsen
local.subject.seo2008960799 Environmental Policy, Legislation and Standards not elsewhere classifieden
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.emailjhunte20@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.identifier.epublicationsrecordune-20161006-103920en
local.publisher.placeAustraliaen
local.format.startpage128en
local.format.endpage132en
local.identifier.scopusid84971013865en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume17en
local.identifier.issue2en
local.title.subtitleA reply to Roff et al. (2016)en
local.contributor.lastnameHunteren
local.contributor.lastnameLechneren
dc.identifier.staffune-id:jhunte20en
local.profile.orcid0000-0001-5112-0465en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:19881en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleReliability of map accuracy assessmentsen
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorHunter, John Ten
local.search.authorLechner, Alex Men
local.uneassociationUnknownen
local.identifier.wosid000376680600007en
local.year.published2016en
local.fileurl.closedpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/7e18760c-30b5-40f1-a258-04aea9b63ba4en
local.subject.for2020410406 Natural resource managementen
local.subject.for2020410401 Conservation and biodiversityen
local.subject.for2020410206 Landscape ecologyen
local.subject.seo2020180403 Assessment and management of Antarctic and Southern Ocean ecosystemsen
local.subject.seo2020189999 Other environmental management not elsewhere classifieden
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

2
checked on Feb 22, 2025

Page view(s)

1,410
checked on Apr 21, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


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