IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i1p35-d474246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Simple Averaging and Latent Class Modeling to Estimate the Area of Land Cover in the Presence of Reference Data Variability

Author

Listed:
  • Dingfan Xing

    (Department of Sustainable Resources Management, SUNY ESF, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA)

  • Stephen V. Stehman

    (Department of Sustainable Resources Management, SUNY ESF, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA)

  • Giles M. Foody

    (School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Room C7 Sir Clive Granger, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK)

  • Bruce W. Pengra

    (KBR, Contractor to the U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198, USA)

Abstract

Estimates of the area or percent area of the land cover classes within a study region are often based on the reference land cover class labels assigned by analysts interpreting satellite imagery and other ancillary spatial data. Different analysts interpreting the same spatial unit will not always agree on the land cover class label that should be assigned. Two approaches for accommodating interpreter variability when estimating the area are simple averaging (SA) and latent class modeling (LCM). This study compares agreement between area estimates obtained from SA and LCM using reference data obtained by seven trained, professional interpreters who independently interpreted an annual time series of land cover reference class labels for 300 sampled Landsat pixels. We also compare the variability of the LCM and SA area estimates over different numbers of interpreters and different subsets of interpreters within each interpreter group size, and examine area estimates of three land cover classes (forest, developed, and wetland) and three change types (forest gain, forest loss, and developed gain). Differences between the area estimates obtained from SA and LCM are most pronounced for the estimates of wetland and the three change types. The percent area estimates of these rare classes were usually greater for LCM compared to SA, with the differences between LCM and SA increasing as the number of interpreters providing the reference data increased. The LCM area estimates generally had larger standard deviations and greater ranges over different subsets of interpreters, indicating greater sensitivity to the selection of the individual interpreters who carried out the reference class labeling.

Suggested Citation

  • Dingfan Xing & Stephen V. Stehman & Giles M. Foody & Bruce W. Pengra, 2021. "Comparison of Simple Averaging and Latent Class Modeling to Estimate the Area of Land Cover in the Presence of Reference Data Variability," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:1:p:35-:d:474246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/35/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/35/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linzer, Drew A. & Lewis, Jeffrey B., 2011. "poLCA: An R Package for Polytomous Variable Latent Class Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i10).
    2. Vermunt, Jeroen K. & Magidson, Jay, 2003. "Latent class models for classification," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-4), pages 531-537, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.
    2. Paul Dolan & Kate Laffan & Alina Velias, 2022. "Who’s miserable now? Identifying clusters of people with the lowest subjective wellbeing in the UK," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 679-710, May.
    3. Adrian O’Hagan & Arthur White, 2019. "Improved model-based clustering performance using Bayesian initialization averaging," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 201-231, March.
    4. Aline Riboli Marasca & Maurício Scopel Hoffmann & Anelise Reis Gaya & Denise Ruschel Bandeira, 2021. "Subjective Well-Being and Psychopathology Symptoms: Mental Health Profiles and their Relations with Academic Achievement in Brazilian Children," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(3), pages 1121-1137, June.
    5. Lisa Blaydes, 2023. "Assessing the Labor Conditions of Migrant Domestic Workers in the Arab Gulf States," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 76(4), pages 724-747, August.
    6. Vermunt, Jeroen K., 2007. "A hierarchical mixture model for clustering three-way data sets," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(11), pages 5368-5376, July.
    7. Monica Pratesi & Claudio Ceccarelli & Stefano Menghinello, 2021. "Citizen-Generated Data and Official Statistics: an application to SDG indicators," Discussion Papers 2021/274, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    8. Jindřich Špička & Zdeňka Náglová, 2022. "Consumer segmentation in the meat market - The case study of Czech Republic," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(2), pages 68-77.
    9. Nicholas T. Davis & Kirby Goidel & Yikai Zhao, 2021. "The Meanings of Democracy among Mass Publics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 849-921, February.
    10. Stanislav Avsec, 2023. "Design Thinking to Envision More Sustainable Technology-Enhanced Teaching for Effective Knowledge Transfer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-26, January.
    11. Carter, Virginia & Derudder, Ben & Henríquez, Cristián, 2021. "Assessing local governments’ perception of the potential implementation of biophilic urbanism in Chile: A latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Arjan S. Gosal & Janine A. McMahon & Katharine M. Bowgen & Catherine H. Hoppe & Guy Ziv, 2021. "Identifying and Mapping Groups of Protected Area Visitors by Environmental Awareness," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    13. Assem Abu Hatab & Padmaja Ravula & Swamikannu Nedumaran & Carl-Johan Lagerkvist, 2022. "Perceptions of the impacts of urban sprawl among urban and peri-urban dwellers of Hyderabad, India: a Latent class clustering analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(11), pages 12787-12812, November.
    14. Martin Eling & David Pankoke, 2016. "Costs and Benefits of Financial Regulation: An Empirical Assessment for Insurance Companies," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 41(4), pages 529-554, October.
    15. Adem, Jan & Gochet, Willy, 2004. "Aggregating classifiers with mathematical programming," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 791-807, November.
    16. Sunil Kumar & Zakir Husain & Diganta Mukherjee, 2015. "Assessing Consistency of Consumer Confidence Data using Dynamic Latent Class Analysis," Papers 1509.01215, arXiv.org.
    17. Lorena Charrier & Paola Berchialla & Paola Dalmasso & Alberto Borraccino & Patrizia Lemma & Franco Cavallo, 2019. "Cigarette Smoking and Multiple Health Risk Behaviors: A Latent Class Regression Model to Identify a Profile of Young Adolescents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1771-1782, August.
    18. Díaz, Estrella & Martín-Consuegra, David, 2016. "A latent class segmentation analysis of airlines based on website evaluation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 20-40.
    19. Maaz Gardezi & J. Gordon Arbuckle, 2019. "Spatially Representing Vulnerability to Extreme Rain Events Using Midwestern Farmers’ Objective and Perceived Attributes of Adaptive Capacity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 17-34, January.
    20. Bolger, Michelle A., 2018. "Predicting arrest probability across time: An exploration of competing risk perspectives," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 92-109.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:1:p:35-:d:474246. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.