Analysis and expert assessment of the semantic similarity between land cover classes
Products of CORINE Land Cover (CLC), the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), the FAO/UNEP Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), etc. currently provide an important source of information used for the assessment of issues such as landscape change, landscape fragmentation and the planning of urbaniz...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Progress in physical geography 2014-06, Vol.38 (3), p.301-327 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 327 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 301 |
| container_title | Progress in physical geography |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Feranec, Jan Solin, Lubomir Kopecka, Monika Otahel, Jan Kupkova, Lucie Stych, Premysl Bicik, Ivan Kolar, Jan Cerba, Otakar Soukup, Tomas Brodsky, Lukas |
| description | Products of CORINE Land Cover (CLC), the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), the FAO/UNEP Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), etc. currently provide an important source of information used for the assessment of issues such as landscape change, landscape fragmentation and the planning of urbanization. Assuming that the data from these various databases are often used in searching for solutions to environmental problems, it is necessary to know which classes of different databases exist and to what extent they are similar, i.e. their possible compatibility and interchangeability. An expert assessment of the similarity between the CLC and NLCD 1992 nomenclatures is presented. Such a similarity assessment in comparison with the ‘geometric model’, the ‘feature model’ and the ‘network model’ is not frequently used. The results obtained show the similarity of assessments completed by four experts who marked the degree of similarity between the compared land cover classes by 1 (almost similar classes), 0.5 (partially similar classes) and 0 (not similar classes). Four experts agreed on assigning 1 in only three cases; 0.5 was given 33 times. A single expert assigned 0.5 a total of 17 times. Results confirmed that the CLC and NLCD nomenclatures are not very similar. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0309133314532001 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1534502893</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0309133314532001</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3330406941</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c339t-33c1c7449d463bc3d007291c624cd20d51eb5f081f63bfd28f2659c4b573063d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMoWKt3jwHxuJpkks3usRStQsFLPS_ZbKJb9qNmUrX_vbu2iAie5vDe783MI-SSsxvOtb5lwHIOAFwqEIzxIzLhUuuEiTw9JpNRTkb9lJwhrhljWgsxIatZZ5od1khNV1H3uXEhUoPoEFvXRdp7Gl8dRdeaLtaWYt3WjQl13NHSxQ_nOtqMpO3fXaC2-UbPyYk3DbqLw5yS5_u71fwhWT4tHuezZWIB8pgAWG61lHklUygtVMNRIuc2FdJWglWKu1J5lnE_yL4SmRepyq0slQaWQgVTcrXP3YT-beswFut-G4aHsOAKpGIiy2Fwsb3Lhh4xOF9sQt2asCs4K8buir_dDcj1IdigNY0PprM1_nAiSzOudDr4kr0PzYv7tfy_3C8WCXpC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1534502893</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Analysis and expert assessment of the semantic similarity between land cover classes</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Feranec, Jan ; Solin, Lubomir ; Kopecka, Monika ; Otahel, Jan ; Kupkova, Lucie ; Stych, Premysl ; Bicik, Ivan ; Kolar, Jan ; Cerba, Otakar ; Soukup, Tomas ; Brodsky, Lukas</creator><creatorcontrib>Feranec, Jan ; Solin, Lubomir ; Kopecka, Monika ; Otahel, Jan ; Kupkova, Lucie ; Stych, Premysl ; Bicik, Ivan ; Kolar, Jan ; Cerba, Otakar ; Soukup, Tomas ; Brodsky, Lukas</creatorcontrib><description>Products of CORINE Land Cover (CLC), the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), the FAO/UNEP Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), etc. currently provide an important source of information used for the assessment of issues such as landscape change, landscape fragmentation and the planning of urbanization. Assuming that the data from these various databases are often used in searching for solutions to environmental problems, it is necessary to know which classes of different databases exist and to what extent they are similar, i.e. their possible compatibility and interchangeability. An expert assessment of the similarity between the CLC and NLCD 1992 nomenclatures is presented. Such a similarity assessment in comparison with the ‘geometric model’, the ‘feature model’ and the ‘network model’ is not frequently used. The results obtained show the similarity of assessments completed by four experts who marked the degree of similarity between the compared land cover classes by 1 (almost similar classes), 0.5 (partially similar classes) and 0 (not similar classes). Four experts agreed on assigning 1 in only three cases; 0.5 was given 33 times. A single expert assigned 0.5 a total of 17 times. Results confirmed that the CLC and NLCD nomenclatures are not very similar.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0309-1333</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-0296</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0309133314532001</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PPGEEC</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Bgi / Prodig ; Geography ; Land use ; Landscape ecology ; Landscapes. Geosystems ; Semantics ; Theoretical geography ; Urbanization</subject><ispartof>Progress in physical geography, 2014-06, Vol.38 (3), p.301-327</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2014</rights><rights>Tous droits réservés © Prodig - Bibliographie Géographique Internationale (BGI), 2014</rights><rights>SAGE Publications © Jun 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c339t-33c1c7449d463bc3d007291c624cd20d51eb5f081f63bfd28f2659c4b573063d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c339t-33c1c7449d463bc3d007291c624cd20d51eb5f081f63bfd28f2659c4b573063d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0309133314532001$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309133314532001$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28681576$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Feranec, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solin, Lubomir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kopecka, Monika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Otahel, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kupkova, Lucie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stych, Premysl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bicik, Ivan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolar, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cerba, Otakar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soukup, Tomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodsky, Lukas</creatorcontrib><title>Analysis and expert assessment of the semantic similarity between land cover classes</title><title>Progress in physical geography</title><description>Products of CORINE Land Cover (CLC), the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), the FAO/UNEP Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), etc. currently provide an important source of information used for the assessment of issues such as landscape change, landscape fragmentation and the planning of urbanization. Assuming that the data from these various databases are often used in searching for solutions to environmental problems, it is necessary to know which classes of different databases exist and to what extent they are similar, i.e. their possible compatibility and interchangeability. An expert assessment of the similarity between the CLC and NLCD 1992 nomenclatures is presented. Such a similarity assessment in comparison with the ‘geometric model’, the ‘feature model’ and the ‘network model’ is not frequently used. The results obtained show the similarity of assessments completed by four experts who marked the degree of similarity between the compared land cover classes by 1 (almost similar classes), 0.5 (partially similar classes) and 0 (not similar classes). Four experts agreed on assigning 1 in only three cases; 0.5 was given 33 times. A single expert assigned 0.5 a total of 17 times. Results confirmed that the CLC and NLCD nomenclatures are not very similar.</description><subject>Bgi / Prodig</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Landscape ecology</subject><subject>Landscapes. Geosystems</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Theoretical geography</subject><subject>Urbanization</subject><issn>0309-1333</issn><issn>1477-0296</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMoWKt3jwHxuJpkks3usRStQsFLPS_ZbKJb9qNmUrX_vbu2iAie5vDe783MI-SSsxvOtb5lwHIOAFwqEIzxIzLhUuuEiTw9JpNRTkb9lJwhrhljWgsxIatZZ5od1khNV1H3uXEhUoPoEFvXRdp7Gl8dRdeaLtaWYt3WjQl13NHSxQ_nOtqMpO3fXaC2-UbPyYk3DbqLw5yS5_u71fwhWT4tHuezZWIB8pgAWG61lHklUygtVMNRIuc2FdJWglWKu1J5lnE_yL4SmRepyq0slQaWQgVTcrXP3YT-beswFut-G4aHsOAKpGIiy2Fwsb3Lhh4xOF9sQt2asCs4K8buir_dDcj1IdigNY0PprM1_nAiSzOudDr4kr0PzYv7tfy_3C8WCXpC</recordid><startdate>20140601</startdate><enddate>20140601</enddate><creator>Feranec, Jan</creator><creator>Solin, Lubomir</creator><creator>Kopecka, Monika</creator><creator>Otahel, Jan</creator><creator>Kupkova, Lucie</creator><creator>Stych, Premysl</creator><creator>Bicik, Ivan</creator><creator>Kolar, Jan</creator><creator>Cerba, Otakar</creator><creator>Soukup, Tomas</creator><creator>Brodsky, Lukas</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140601</creationdate><title>Analysis and expert assessment of the semantic similarity between land cover classes</title><author>Feranec, Jan ; Solin, Lubomir ; Kopecka, Monika ; Otahel, Jan ; Kupkova, Lucie ; Stych, Premysl ; Bicik, Ivan ; Kolar, Jan ; Cerba, Otakar ; Soukup, Tomas ; Brodsky, Lukas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c339t-33c1c7449d463bc3d007291c624cd20d51eb5f081f63bfd28f2659c4b573063d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Bgi / Prodig</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Landscape ecology</topic><topic>Landscapes. Geosystems</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Theoretical geography</topic><topic>Urbanization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Feranec, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solin, Lubomir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kopecka, Monika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Otahel, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kupkova, Lucie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stych, Premysl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bicik, Ivan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolar, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cerba, Otakar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soukup, Tomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodsky, Lukas</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Progress in physical geography</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Feranec, Jan</au><au>Solin, Lubomir</au><au>Kopecka, Monika</au><au>Otahel, Jan</au><au>Kupkova, Lucie</au><au>Stych, Premysl</au><au>Bicik, Ivan</au><au>Kolar, Jan</au><au>Cerba, Otakar</au><au>Soukup, Tomas</au><au>Brodsky, Lukas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Analysis and expert assessment of the semantic similarity between land cover classes</atitle><jtitle>Progress in physical geography</jtitle><date>2014-06-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>301</spage><epage>327</epage><pages>301-327</pages><issn>0309-1333</issn><eissn>1477-0296</eissn><coden>PPGEEC</coden><abstract>Products of CORINE Land Cover (CLC), the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), the FAO/UNEP Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), etc. currently provide an important source of information used for the assessment of issues such as landscape change, landscape fragmentation and the planning of urbanization. Assuming that the data from these various databases are often used in searching for solutions to environmental problems, it is necessary to know which classes of different databases exist and to what extent they are similar, i.e. their possible compatibility and interchangeability. An expert assessment of the similarity between the CLC and NLCD 1992 nomenclatures is presented. Such a similarity assessment in comparison with the ‘geometric model’, the ‘feature model’ and the ‘network model’ is not frequently used. The results obtained show the similarity of assessments completed by four experts who marked the degree of similarity between the compared land cover classes by 1 (almost similar classes), 0.5 (partially similar classes) and 0 (not similar classes). Four experts agreed on assigning 1 in only three cases; 0.5 was given 33 times. A single expert assigned 0.5 a total of 17 times. Results confirmed that the CLC and NLCD nomenclatures are not very similar.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0309133314532001</doi><tpages>27</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0309-1333 |
| ispartof | Progress in physical geography, 2014-06, Vol.38 (3), p.301-327 |
| issn | 0309-1333 1477-0296 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1534502893 |
| source | SAGE Complete A-Z List |
| subjects | Bgi / Prodig Geography Land use Landscape ecology Landscapes. Geosystems Semantics Theoretical geography Urbanization |
| title | Analysis and expert assessment of the semantic similarity between land cover classes |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T05%3A01%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analysis%20and%20expert%20assessment%20of%20the%20semantic%20similarity%20between%20land%20cover%20classes&rft.jtitle=Progress%20in%20physical%20geography&rft.au=Feranec,%20Jan&rft.date=2014-06-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=301&rft.epage=327&rft.pages=301-327&rft.issn=0309-1333&rft.eissn=1477-0296&rft.coden=PPGEEC&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0309133314532001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3330406941%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1534502893&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0309133314532001&rfr_iscdi=true |