Tomislav Hengl and Norair Toomanian.
Maps are not what they seem: representing uncertainty in soil-property maps.
In M. Caetano and M. Painho (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, pp. 805--813, 2006.

Links:

Abstract:

The paper discusses use of static visualization techniques for representation of uncertainty in spatial prediction models illustrated with examples from soil mapping. The uncertainty of a prediction model, represented with the prediction error, is commonly ignored or only visualized separately from the predictions. Two techniques that can be used to visualize the uncertainty are colour mixing (whitening) and pixel mixing. In both cases, the uncertainty is coded with the white colour and quantitative values are coded with Hues. Additional hybrid static visualization technique (pixel mixing with simulations) that shows both the short-range variation and the overall uncertainty is described. Examples from a case study from Central Iran (4271 km) were used to demonstrate the possible applications and emphasize the importance of visualizing the uncertainty in maps. The soil predictions were made using 118 soil profiles and 16 predictors ranging from terrain parameters to Landsat 7 bands. All variables were mapped using regression-kriging and grid resolution of 100 m. Final maps of texture fractions, EC and organic matter in topsoil were visualized using the whitening, pixel missing and pixel mixing combined with simulations. Visualization of uncertainty allows users to compare success of spatial prediction models for various variables. In this case study, the results showed that there can be quite some differences in the achieved precision of predictions for various variables and that some soil variables need to be collected with much higher inspection density to satisfy the required precision. Visualization of uncertainty also allows users to dynamically improve the precision of predictions by collecting additional samples. Links to scripts that the users can download and use to visualize their datasets are given.

Bibtex:

@InProceedings{  hengl:2006:MUSP,
  author = 	 {Tomislav Hengl and Norair Toomanian},
  editor =       {M. Caetano and M. Painho},
  title = 	 {Maps are not what they seem: representing
                  uncertainty in soil-property maps},
  booktitle =    {Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on
                  Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and
                  Environmental Sciences},
  month =        {July},
  year = 	 {2006},
  pages =        {805--813},
}

Images:

References:


Bastin, L., Fisher, P.F. and Wood, J., 2002. Visualizing uncertainty in multi-spectral remotely sensed imagery. Computers & Geosciences, 28(3): 337-350.
Christensen, R., 2001. Linear Models for Multivariate, Time Series, and Spatial Data. Springer Text in Statistics, New York: Springer Verlag, 393 p.
Cleveland, W.S., 1993, Visualizing Data. New Jersey: Hobart Press, Summit, 360 p.
Ehlschlaeger, C.R., Shortridge, A.M. and Goodchild, M.F., 1997. Visualizing spatial data uncertainty
using animation. Computers & Geosciences, 23(4): 387-395.
Goovaerts, P., 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press,
496 p.
Goovaerts, P., 1999. Geostatistics in soil science: State-of-the-art and perspectives. Geoderma, 89(1-2): 1- 45.
Hengl, T., 2003. Visualisation of uncertainty using the HSI colour model: computations with colours. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on GeoComputation, 8-10 September 2003, Southampton, pp. 8, Available online at: www.geocomputation.org (last accessed 12 May 2006).
Hengl, T., Walvoort, D.J.J., Brown, A., 2004a. A double continuous approach to visualisation and analysis of categorical maps. Int. Jou. of Geographical Information Science, 18(2): 183-202.
Hengl, T., Heuvelink, G.M.B. and Stein, A., 2004b. A generic framework for spatial prediction of soil variables based on regression-kriging. Geoderma, 122(1-2): 75-93.
Hengl, T., Heuvelink, G.M.B., Rossiter, D.G., 2006. About regression-kriging: from equations to case studies. Computers and geosciences, in press.
Heuvelink, G.B.M., Brus, D.J. and De Gruijter, J.J., 2006. Optimization of sample configuration for digital mapping of soil properties with universal kriging. In: P. Lagacherie, A.B. McBartney and M. Voltz (eds): Digital Soil Mapping: An Introductory Perspective. Developments in Soil Science, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Monmonier, M., 1996. How to Lie with Maps. 2nd edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 222 p.
Pebesma, E.J., D. Karssenberg, K. de Jong, 2000. The stochastic dimension in a dynamic GIS. In: J.G. Bethlehem, P.G.M. van der Heijden (eds): Compstat 2000, Proceedings in Computational Statistics. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, pp. 379-384.
Pebesma, E.J., 2004. Multivariable geostatistics in S: the gstat package. Computers & Geosciences, 30(7): 683-691.
Wingle, W.L., Poeter, E.P. and McKenna, S.A., 1999. UNCERT: geostatistics, uncertainty analysis and visualization software applied to groundwater flow and contaminant transport modeling. Computers & Geosciences, 25(4): 365-376.