The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy assessment and validation of remotely sensed and other spatial information
Abstract
This paper was presented at the conference ‘Integrating spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management’, Boise, Idaho, USA, June 1999 Today, validation or accuracy assessment is an integral component of most mapping projects incorporating remotely sensed data. Other spatial information may not be so stringently evaluated, but at least requires meta-data that documents how the information was generated. This emphasis on data quality was not always the case. In the 1970s only a few brave scientists and researchers dared ask the question, ‘How good is this map derived from Landsat MSS imagery?’ In the 1980s, the use of the error matrix became a common tool for representing the accuracy of individual map categories. By the 1990s, most maps derived from remotely sensed imagery were required to meet some minimum accuracy standard. A similar progression can be outlined for other spatial information. However, this progression is about 5 years behind the validation of remotely sensed data. This paper presents a series of steps moving towards better assessment and validation of spatial information and asks the reader to evaluate where they are in this series and to move forward.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Cited by
Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009
Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P., Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., Fekete, B. M., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.67 · Cited by 837
Ecological engineering by a mega-grazer: White Rhino impacts on a South African savanna.
Waldram, M. S., Bond, W. J., & Stock, W. D. (2008) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10021-007-9109-9 · Cited by 292
Haslem, A., Callister, K. E., Avitabile, S. C., Griffioen, P. A., Kelly, L. T., Nimmo, D. G., Spence-Bailey, L. M., Taylor, R. S., Watson, S. J., Brown, L., et al. (2010) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.002 · Cited by 45
Vegetation Dynamics in Yellowstone’s Northern Range: 1985 to 1999
Savage, S. L., & Lawrence, R. L. (2010) · Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing · doi:10.14358/pers.76.5.547 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Congalton, R. G.
- Venue
- International Journal of Wildland Fire
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2001-09-21
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 321-328
- ISSN
- 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
- 1448-5516
- OpenAlex
- W2102662878
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accuracy assessment and validation of remotely sensed and other spatial information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/wf01031
- The paper
- Congalton, R. G. (2001). Accuracy assessment and validation of remotely sensed and other spatial information. International Journal of Wildland Fire. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf01031
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.