4.6 Review

Meta-discoveries from a synthesis of satellite-based land-cover mapping research

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
卷 35, 期 13, 页码 4573-4588

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2014.930206

关键词

-

资金

  1. National High Technology Programme of China [2009AA12200101]
  2. National Natural Science Funds of China [41301445]
  3. Open Fund of State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science [OFSLRSS201202]
  4. Tsinghua University [2012Z02287]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the launch of the first land-observation satellite (Landsat-1) in 1972, land-cover mapping has accumulated a wide range of knowledge in the peer-reviewed literature. However, this knowledge has never been comprehensively analysed for new discoveries. Here, we developed the first spatialized database of scientific literature in English about land-cover mapping. Using this database, we tried to identify the spatial temporal patterns and spatial hotspots of land-cover mapping research around the world. Among other findings, we observed (1) a significant mismatch between hotspot areas of land-cover mapping and areas that are either hard to map or rich in biodiversity; (2) mapping frequency is positively related to economic conditions; (3) there is no obvious temporal trend showing improvement in mapping accuracy; (4) images with more spectral bands or a combination of data types resulted in increased mapping accuracies; (5) accuracy differences due to algorithm differences are not as large as those due to various types of data used; and (6) the complexity of a classification system decreases its mapping accuracy. We recommend that one way to improve our understanding of the challenges, advances, and applications of previous land-cover mapping is for journals to require area-based information at the time of manuscript submission. In addition, building a standard protocol for systematic assessment of land-cover mapping efforts at the global scale through international collaboration is badly needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据