the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An improved global land cover mapping in 2015 with 30 m resolution (GLC-2015) based on a multi-source product fusion approach
Bingjie Li
Xiaocong Xu
Xiaoping Liu
Qian Shi
Haoming Zhuang
Yaotong Cai
Da He
Abstract. Global land cover (GLC) information with fine spatial resolution is a fundamental data input for studies on biogeochemical cycles of the Earth system and global climate change. Although there are several public GLC products with 30 m resolution, considerable inconsistencies were found among them especially in fragmented regions and transition zones, which brings great uncertainties to various application tasks. In this paper, we developed an improved global land cover map in 2015 with 30 m resolution (GLC-2015) by fusing multiple existing land cover products based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence (DSET). Firstly, we used more than 160,000 global point-based samples to locally evaluated the reliability of the input GLC products for each LC class within each 4°×4° geographical grid for the establishment of the basic probability assignment (BPA) function. Then, the Dempster’s rule of combination was used for each 30 m pixel to derive the combined probability mass of each possible land cover class from all the candidate maps. Finally, each pixel was determined with a land cover class based on a decision rule. Through this fusing process, each pixel is expected to be assigned with the land cover class that contributes to achieve a higher accuracy. We assessed our product separately with 34,987 global point-based samples and 144 global patch-based samples. Results show that, the GLC-2015 map achieved the highest mapping performance globally, continentally, and eco-regionally compared with the existing 30 m GLC maps, with an overall accuracy of 76.0 % (83.8 %) and a kappa coefficient of 0.715 (0.548) against the point-based (patch-based) validation samples. Additionally, we found that the GLC-2015 map showed substantial outperformance in the areas of inconsistency, with an accuracy improvement of 17.6 %–23.2 % in areas of moderate inconsistency, and 21.0 %–25.2 % in areas of high inconsistency. Hopefully, this improved GLC-2015 product can be applied to reduce uncertainties in the research on global environmental changes, ecosystem service assessments, and hazard damage evaluations, etc. The GLC-2015 map developed in this study is available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19752856.v1 (Li et al., 2022).
- Preprint
(3085 KB) -
Supplement
(443 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Bingjie Li et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2022-142', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Sep 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bingjie Li, 07 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2022-142', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Sep 2022
This paper developed an improved global land cover map at 30m resolution in 2015 by fusing multi-source products of land covers and other thematic mappers. Two sets of global samples with points and patches have been developed and used to evaluate the performance of derived GLC-2015. This work is high-intensive in terms of the labor involved, and the evaluation is sound with clear logic. Before recommending it for publication, I raised several concerns below, which might be helpful to improve this paper.
(1) Although the authors adopted the DSET approach to generate the GLC-2015 product and compared it with similar products such as FROM-GLC and GLC_FCS30, the improvements gained from the DSET approach should be highlighted in those common approaches such as major voting and other common approaches. Otherwise, the highlights of the DSET in the manuscript should be reconsidered.
(2) How about the mapping performance if using these samples (80%) do the classification directly? Because these samples have been manually visualized and are qualified for the classification task. Please add some test results or discuss this issue in the manuscript.
(3) The proposed work can also be applied in regions with adequate and high-quality data, such as NLCD in the US and China. This can be improved or discussed in the revised manuscript.
Minor Comments:
- Page 108: BPA function. This term should be fully spelled when it first appears in the main text.
- Page 172: The selection of 4°4° should be discussed.
- Page 178-179: I wonder why the initial samples generated from the FROM_GLC were used in this study, not other land cover products. Explanations about this topic should be discussed in the manuscript.
- Page 198: Why select these 1507 samples randomly? Can they be determined according to their ecoregions or cover types? It is better to explain it here clearly.
- Fig. 3 and Fig.4 can be combined. Also, the main text uses “Fig” whereas the figure caption uses “Figure”. Please make them consistent.
- Page 281: how to determine these two thresholds: 25% and 75% in Eq. (4). Please explain.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-142-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bingjie Li, 07 Nov 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2022-142', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Sep 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bingjie Li, 07 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2022-142', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Sep 2022
This paper developed an improved global land cover map at 30m resolution in 2015 by fusing multi-source products of land covers and other thematic mappers. Two sets of global samples with points and patches have been developed and used to evaluate the performance of derived GLC-2015. This work is high-intensive in terms of the labor involved, and the evaluation is sound with clear logic. Before recommending it for publication, I raised several concerns below, which might be helpful to improve this paper.
(1) Although the authors adopted the DSET approach to generate the GLC-2015 product and compared it with similar products such as FROM-GLC and GLC_FCS30, the improvements gained from the DSET approach should be highlighted in those common approaches such as major voting and other common approaches. Otherwise, the highlights of the DSET in the manuscript should be reconsidered.
(2) How about the mapping performance if using these samples (80%) do the classification directly? Because these samples have been manually visualized and are qualified for the classification task. Please add some test results or discuss this issue in the manuscript.
(3) The proposed work can also be applied in regions with adequate and high-quality data, such as NLCD in the US and China. This can be improved or discussed in the revised manuscript.
Minor Comments:
- Page 108: BPA function. This term should be fully spelled when it first appears in the main text.
- Page 172: The selection of 4°4° should be discussed.
- Page 178-179: I wonder why the initial samples generated from the FROM_GLC were used in this study, not other land cover products. Explanations about this topic should be discussed in the manuscript.
- Page 198: Why select these 1507 samples randomly? Can they be determined according to their ecoregions or cover types? It is better to explain it here clearly.
- Fig. 3 and Fig.4 can be combined. Also, the main text uses “Fig” whereas the figure caption uses “Figure”. Please make them consistent.
- Page 281: how to determine these two thresholds: 25% and 75% in Eq. (4). Please explain.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-142-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bingjie Li, 07 Nov 2022
Bingjie Li et al.
Data sets
An improved global land cover mapping in 2015 with 30 m resolution (GLC-2015) based on a multi-source product fusion approach Li, Bingjie; Xu, Xiaocong; Liu, Xiaoping; Shi, Qian; Zhuang, Haoming; Cai, Yaotong; et al. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19752856.v1
Bingjie Li et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
473 | 151 | 18 | 642 | 46 | 10 | 8 |
- HTML: 473
- PDF: 151
- XML: 18
- Total: 642
- Supplement: 46
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1