Assessment of TerraClass and MapBiomas data on legend and map agreement for the Brazilian Amazon biome

ABSTRACT Reliable environmental monitoring and evaluation require high-quality maps of land use and land cover. For the Amazon biome, the TerraClass and MapBiomas projects apply different methodologies to create these maps. We evaluated the agreement between land cover and land use maps generated by TerraClass and MapBiomas (Collections 2 and 3) for the Brazilian Amazon biome, from 2004 to 2014. Specifically, we: (1) described both project legends based on the LCCS (Land Cover Classification System); (2) analyzed the differences between their classes; and (3) compared the mapping differences among the Brazilian states that are totally or partially covered by the Amazon biome. We compared the classifications with a per-pixel approach and performed an evaluation based on agreement matrices. The overall agreement between the projects was 87.4% (TerraClass x MapBiomas 2) and 92.0% (TerraClass x MapBiomas 3). We analyzed methodological differences to explain the disagreements in class identification. We conclude that using these maps together without a properly adapted legend is not recommended for the analysis of land use and land cover change. Depending on the application, one mapping system may be more suitable than the other.

摘要 可靠的环境监测与评估离不开高质量的土地利用与土地覆盖地图。针对亚马孙生物群区，TerraClass与MapBiomas项目采用迥异的方法生成此类地图。本研究针对2004至2014年的巴西亚马孙生物群区，评估了TerraClass与MapBiomas（第2版、第3版）所生成的土地覆盖与土地利用地图的一致性。具体研究内容包括：（1）基于LCCS（Land Cover Classification System，即土地覆盖分类系统）对两个项目的分类图例进行规范描述；（2）分析二者类别间的差异；（3）对比巴西境内全部或部分覆盖亚马孙生物群区的各州的制图差异。本研究采用逐像素方法对分类结果开展对比，并基于一致性矩阵完成评估。两个项目间的总体一致性分别为87.4%（TerraClass × MapBiomas 2）与92.0%（TerraClass × MapBiomas 3）。我们通过剖析方法学差异，解释了类别识别中出现的不一致性。研究结论显示，若未对分类图例进行适当适配，不建议将这两类地图直接结合用于土地利用与土地覆盖变化分析。根据具体应用场景的不同，其中一种制图系统可能比另一种更具适用性。