七套土地覆被数据在羌塘高原的精度评价
作者简介:刘琼欢(1990- ),女,湖南永兴人,博士研究生,主要从事土地覆被变化研究。E-mail:liuqh.16b@igsnrr.ac.cn
收稿日期: 2017-04-24
要求修回日期: 2017-09-08
网络出版日期: 2017-11-20
基金资助
国家科技基础性工作专项重点项目(2012FY111400)
中国科学院战略性先导科技专项(XDB03030500)
国家科技支撑计划(2012BAC06B00)
Accuracy evaluation of the seven land cover data in Qiangtang Plateau
Received date: 2017-04-24
Request revised date: 2017-09-08
Online published: 2017-11-20
Copyright
基于羌塘高原8个一级土地覆被类型(包括10个二级土地覆被类型)的6851个样本点,采用混淆矩阵方法,从总体精度、制图精度和用户精度角度评价International Geosphere-Biosphere Program's Data and Information System Cover(IGBPDIS)、Global Land cover mapping at 30 m resolution(GlobeLand 30)、The MODIS Land Cover Type product(MCD12Q1)、Climate Change Initiative Land Cover(CCI-LC)和Global Land Cover 2000(GLC2000)等七套土地覆被数据产品在羌塘高原的精度。结果表明:① 七套数据产品的一级类型和二级类型总体精度普遍偏低,在相对较高的GlobeLand 30和CCI-LC数据中,一级类型总体精度分别为55.09%和53.92%,二级类型分别为46.55%和46.23%;② 草地、裸地和荒漠三个主要一级类型生产者精度最高的数据对应为:GLC 2000(46.19%)、MCD12Q1(39.20%)和IGBPDIS(84.44%)。而三个主要一级类型的用户精度均低于50%。其他覆被类型中,雪被与冰川类型用户精度最高的数据为CCI-LC(92.80%),漏分比例为19.90%;③ 羌塘高原特殊的高原环境与土地覆被分类系统构成原则和标准是影响遥感解译数据精度的主要原因。
刘琼欢 , 张镱锂 , 刘林山 , 李兰晖 , 祁威 . 七套土地覆被数据在羌塘高原的精度评价[J]. 地理研究, 2017 , 36(11) : 2061 -2074 . DOI: 10.11821/dlyj201711003
The land cover datasets in the Qiangtang Plateau (QP) have generally been considered as the fundamental data in the studies of local environmental and ecological issues. We evaluated the accuracy of seven land cover datasets in the QP, i.e. International Geosphere-Biosphere Program's Data and Information System Cover (IGBPDIS), Global Land cover mapping at 30 m resolution (GlobeLand 30), The MODIS Land Cover Type product (MCD12Q1), Climate Change Initiative Land Cover (CCI-LC), Global Land Cover 2000 (GLC2000), GlobCover 2009 (GlobCover) and University of Maryland (UMD). For that, the study used 6851 field samples with first and second level (8 and 10, respectively) land cover types. Three widely used parameters were derived to describe the error matrix of the map and also for the overall user's and producer's accuracy. The quantitative assessments of the map quality and classification accuracy for the available land cover maps will help to improve the overall accuracy of land cover mapping in future. The overall results of the assessment pointed out that the GlobeLand 30 and CCI-LC land cover map have higher accuracy than other data sets. However, they are also just 55.09% and 53.92% in first level assessment and 46.55% and 46.23% in the second level accuracy assessment. The best producer's accuracies of the three main land cover classes, e.g. alpine grassland, barren land and desert land in the QP were 46.19% in GLC 2000, 39.20% in MCD12Q1, and 84.44% in the IGBPDIS. The user's accuracy of the three first level land cover classes were less than 50%. In addition, the accuracy of the CCI-LC data was 92.8%, with omission error at 19.90% in the snow and ice cover. After analysis, we found that the discrepancy of classification system and the typical plateau environment in the QP are the main factors that result in a high level of inaccuracy of the land cover datasets.
Tab.1 Characteristics of seven land cover data sets表1 七套土地覆被数据 |
| 数据名称 | 整体精度(%) | 验证方法 | 传感器 | 分类方法 | 分辨率 | 年份 | 分类系统类型数 | 链接 | 参考文献 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLC 2000 | 68.6 | Confidence values statistical sampling | SPOT4 VEGETATION | 非监督分类 | 1 km | 1999-2000 | FAO LCCS (23 classes) | http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/products.php | Bartholomé等[26] |
| IGBPDIS | 66.9 | Statistical sampling of validation working group | AVHRR | 非监督分类 | 1 km | 1992-1993 | USGS IGBP (17 classes) | http://edc2.usgs.gov/glcc/tabgoode_globe.php | Loveland等[27] |
| UMD | 65.0 | Evaluated using other digital datasets | AVHRR | 非监督分类、 决策树分类 | 1 km | 1992-1993 | Simplified IGBP (14 classes) | http://www.landcover.org/data/landcover/index.shtml | Hansen等[28] |
| MCD12Q1 | 74.8 | Cross-validation | MODIS | 监督分类、决策树分类、神经网络 | 500 m | 2013 | IGBP (17 classes) | http://e4ftl01.cr.usgs.gov/MOTA/MCD12Q1.051/ | Friedl等[29,30] |
| GlobCover | 67.5 | Statistical sampling expert's judgement | MERIS FR | 监督分类、 非监督分类 | 300 m | 2009 | UN LCCS (22 classes) | http://due.esrin.esa.int/globcover/ | Bontemps等[31] |
| CCI-LC | 74.1 | Sampling-based labeling approach | MERIS Full and Reduced Resolution/ SPOT | 非监督分类 | 300 m | 2008-2012 | UN LCCS (22 classes) | http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/index.php | Belgium等[32] |
| GlobeLand 30 | 80.0 | Knowledge-based interactive verification | Landsat TM, ETM7, HJ-1A/b/ | 基于像元、对象和知识规则分类 | 30 m | 2010 | 11 classes | http://www.globallandcover.com | Chen等[33] |
Tab. 2 Class description of the filed sample in Qiangtang Plateau表2 羌塘高原样本点概况 |
| 类型 | 样本点数量 | 类型定义 | 类型 | 样本点数量 | 类型定义 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高寒草甸 | 777 | 由寒冷中生多年生草本植物为主的植物群落覆盖区域,本研究区主要指藏北嵩草草甸、小嵩草(高山嵩草)草甸覆盖区 | 湖泊 | 1157 | 指自然条件下形成的积水区常年水位以下的土地 |
| 高寒草原 | 1245 | 具有一定御寒能力的、旱生的多年生草本植物和小半灌木植物占优势的植物群落覆盖区域 | 沼泽湿地 | 80 | 指覆盖着水(淡水、半咸水或咸水)与草本或木本植物的广阔区域,是介于陆地和水体之间的过渡带 |
| 稀疏植被 | 29 | 分布在连续植物覆盖的植被以上至永久雪线之间的、由适应严寒生境的寒旱生或寒冷中旱生多年生轴根性杂类草或以垫状植物或地衣苔藓等构成的盖度在5%~40%的植被区域。如蚤缀、点地梅垫状植被分布区域 | 居民建设用地 | 35 | 指被建筑物覆盖的土地类型 |
| 半灌木或矮半灌木荒漠 | 662 | 半灌木、矮半灌木(驼绒藜、木亚菊、蒿)荒漠、垫状驼绒藜荒漠广泛分布区域 | 裸地 | 125 | 指裸地、沙地、岩石、盐碱地,植被覆盖度不超过10 % |
| 河流 | 38 | 指自然形成的沿着地表长条状槽形洼地 | 雪被与冰川 | 2703 | 指常年由积雪或者冰覆盖的土地类型 |
| 合计 | 6851 |
注:野外样本点选择标准:参照植被类型调查方法,选取土地覆被类型均一、周邻一致性较好、代表性较强的位置;该点位空域代表范围依土地覆被类型分布特征而变化,如草原、荒漠等大面积类型,可表示以点位为圆心,半径为500~1000 m的区域;除部分小面积类型,如河流点位表示的范围不确定外,其他类型样本点位至少可表示半径为30~50 m的区域。 |
Fig.1 Spatial distribution of the filed investigated sample points in Qiangtang Plateau图1 羌塘高原样本点空间分布 |
Tab. 3 Corresponding relationships of classes in different classification system between eight land cover data sets and ground data表3 羌塘高原地区不同土地覆被数据与样本点分类系统间的类别对应关系 |
| 类型 | IGBP (IGBPDIS、MCD12Q1、UMD) | FAO LCCS (GLC 2000、GlobCover、CCI-LC) | GlobeLand 30 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 序号 | 一级 | 二级 | |||
| 1 | 草地 | 草地 | 草原、草甸 | 草地 | |
| 2 | 高寒草甸 | - | 草甸 | - | |
| 3 | 高寒草原 | 草地 | 草原 | 草地 | |
| 4 | 稀疏植被 | 稀疏植被 | - | 自然植被与农田镶嵌类型、稀疏植被 | - |
| 5 | 半灌木或矮半灌木荒漠 | 半灌木或矮半灌木荒漠 | 稀疏灌木林地 | 荒漠草地、灌丛、落叶灌丛 | 灌木林地 |
| 6 | 水体 | 水体 | 水体 | 水体 | |
| 7 | 河流 | - | - | - | |
| 8 | 湖泊 | - | - | - | |
| 9 | 沼泽湿地 | 沼泽湿地 | 湿地 | 稀疏草本或木本湿地 | 湿地 |
| 10 | 居民建设用地 | 居民建设用地 | 建设用地 | 建设用地 | 人造地表 |
| 11 | 裸地 | 裸地 | 裸地 | 裸地、砾石裸地、松散裸地 | 裸地 |
| 12 | 雪被和冰川 | 雪被和冰川 | 雪被与冰川 | 永久雪被与冰川 | 永久雪被与冰川 |
| 13 | 无 | - | 常绿针叶林、常绿阔叶林、落叶针叶林、落叶阔叶林、混交林、郁闭灌木林地、森林稀疏草原、稀树草原、农田、农田与自然植被镶嵌类型 | 旱地、灌溉或季节性水淹农田、农田与自然植被镶嵌类型、常绿针叶林 | 农田、乔木林地 |
注:表中各数据产品的完整分类代码请参照数据源说明,该表只列出了各数据产品在羌塘高原中的类型。“无”指在本文研究区现实中不存在的土地覆被类型,而各对应的数据产品在本区域中出现的土地覆被类型。 |
Fig. 2 Distribution of eight data sets at Level I of the classification on the Qiangtang Plateau图2 七套数据产品在羌塘高原地区一级类型的空间分布特征 注:图中及下文各图中的不一致类别均指研究区现实中不存在的土地覆被类型,而各对应的数据产品在本区域中出现的土地覆被类型。 |
Fig. 3 Distribution of seven data sets at Level II of the classification on the Qiangtang Plateau图3 七套土地覆被数据产品在羌塘高原地区二级类型的空间分布特征 |
Fig. 4 Agreement and accuracy of land cover data sets图4 土地覆被数据一致性与准确性分布图 注:图b中,纵坐标值为1表示在该样本点上7套数据的分类结果各不相同,值为2表示在该样本点上有2套产品的分类结果是一致的,……,值为7表示有7套产品在该样本点上的分类结果全部一致。 |
Table 4 Area proportion and overall accuracy of different land cover types of the seven data products (%)表4 七套数据产品中不同类型面积比例及总体精度(%) |
| 类型 | CCI-LC | GLC 2000 | GlobCover | GlobeLand30 | IGBPDIS | MCD12Q1 | UMD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 本文 研究区 | 稀疏植被 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 2.51 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 湿地 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.00 | |
| 建设用地 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 雪被与冰川 | 2.25 | 2.49 | 1.64 | 1.19 | 1.19 | 1.25 | 0.00 | |
| 草地 | 70.51 | 67.69 | 68.84 | 86.12 | 40.47 | 3.53 | 19.75 | |
| 高寒荒漠 | 1.10 | 16.62 | 0.00 | 2.34 | 2.34 | 9.49 | 68.50 | |
| 水体 | 4.00 | 2.77 | 4.07 | 4.40 | 4.40 | 3.32 | 4.09 | |
| 裸地 | 20.06 | 9.28 | 51.31 | 24.07 | 24.07 | 40.91 | 23.88 | |
| 一级类型 总体精度 | 53.92 | 49.97 | 31.88 | 55.09 | 11.76 | 24.61 | 5.98 | |
| 二级类型 总体精度 | 46.23 | 39.41 | 26.23 | 46.55 | 10.61 | 21.46 | 6.00 | |
| 等级 | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | Ⅳ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | |
| 国际报道 | 总体精度 | 74.40 | 68.60 | 67.50 | 80.03 | 66.90 | 74.80 | 65.00 |
| 参考文献 | 文献[32] | 文献[26] | 文献[31] | 文献[33] | 文献[27] | 文献[29, 30] | 文献[28] |
Fig. 5 Producer's accuracy and user's accuracy of seven land cover data sets at Level I of the classification图5 一级土地覆被类型的生产者精度和用户精度 |
Tab. 5 Accuracy of area estimation of different land cover types of the seven data products (%)表5 七套数据产品中不同类型面积估算精度(%) |
| 数据 | 稀疏植被 | 湿地 | 建设用地 | 雪被与冰川 | 草地 | 高寒荒漠 | 水体 | 裸地 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCI-LC | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 12.70 | 12.32 | 7.79 | 73.25 | 14.48 |
| GlobalLand 30 | 0.00 | 8.75 | 26.83 | 25.24 | 4.41 | 0.00 | 57.96 | 34.43 |
| GLC 2000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 36.46 | 15.00 | 19.17 | 40.85 | 0.68 |
| GlobCover | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 42.87 | 1.74 | 0.00 | 87.48 | 21.40 |
| MCD12Q1 | 0.00 | 64.17 | 0.00 | 55.69 | 1.18 | 3.55 | 81.24 | 37.59 |
| IGBPDIS | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 21.53 | 73.82 | 30.03 | 0.70 |
| UMD | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.88 | 42.86 | 42.54 | 9.90 |
Fig. 6 Confusion of Level I of the classification between the six land cover datasets图6 土地覆被一级类型混淆比例 |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
[
|
| [22] |
[
|
| [23] |
[
|
| [24] |
[
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
[
|
| [40] |
[
|
| [41] |
中国科学院青藏高原综合科学考察队. 西藏植被. 北京: 科学出版社, 1988.
[
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |