Abstract
The simple and intuitive nature of the coincidence matrix has not only made it the current “gold standard” for accuracy assessment (based on a sample of map pixels), but also a common tool for describing difference between two categorical maps (when all pixels are enumerated). It is this latter case of map comparison that this article explores. Coincidence matrices, although providing significant information regarding thematic agreement between two categorical maps (composition), can lack significantly in terms of conveying information about differences or similarities in the spatial arrangement (configuration) of those map categories in geographic space. This article introduces means for distilling the available configuration information from a coincidence matrix while demonstrating some simple categorical map comparisons. Specifically, while the coincidence matrix summarizes per‐pixel compositional persistence or change, the introduced technique further quantifies the global and local configurational uncertainty between compared maps. I demonstrate how this quantification of configurational uncertainty can be used to gauge which thematic mismatch types are most significant and how to measure/present local configurational uncertainty in a spatial context. Implementation is through a straightforward mathematical algorithm in R that is illustrated by several examples.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call