Paper detail

A framework for scale-sensitive, spatially explicit accuracy assessment of binary built-up surface layers

To better understand the dynamics of human settlements, thorough knowledge of the uncertainty in geospatial built-up surface datasets is critical. While frameworks for localized accuracy assessments of categorical gridded data have been proposed to account for the spatial non-stationarity of classification accuracy, such approaches have not been applied to (binary) built-up land data. Such data differs from other data such as land cover data, due to considerable variations of built-up surface density across the rural-urban continuum resulting in switches of class imbalance, causing sparsely populated confusion matrices based on small underlying sample sizes. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap by testing common agreement measures for their suitability and plausibility to measure the localized accuracy of built-up surface data. We examine the sensitivity of localized accuracy to the assessment support, as well as to the unit of analysis, and analyze the relationships between local accuracy and density / structure-related properties of built-up areas, across rural-urban trajectories and over time. Our experiments are based on the multi-temporal Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL) and a reference database for the state of Massachusetts (USA). We find strong variation of suitability among commonly used agreement measures, and varying levels of sensitivity to the assessment support. We then apply our framework to assess localized GHSL data accuracy over time from 1975 to 2014. Besides increasing accuracy along the rural-urban gradient, we find that accuracy generally increases over time, mainly driven by peri-urban densification processes in our study area. Moreover, we find that localized densification measures derived from the GHSL tend to overestimate peri-urban densification processes that occurred between 1975 and 2014, due to higher levels of omission errors in the GHSL epoch 1975.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.