A comparative analysis of forest area differences between statistics information and spatial thematic maps

IF 1.8 Q2 FORESTRY
Jeongmook Park, Y. Lee, Jung soo Lee
{"title":"A comparative analysis of forest area differences between statistics information and spatial thematic maps","authors":"Jeongmook Park, Y. Lee, Jung soo Lee","doi":"10.1080/21580103.2022.2072406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Securing reliable data on forest areas is necessary for the establishment of various policies and decision-making for forest administration. In this study, the definition of forest, minimum partitioning criteria, purpose of production, production method, and period of update were analyzed, which were prescribed for the statistics (Forest Basic Statistics [FBS] and Cadastral Statistical Annual Report [CSAR]) and spatial data (digital forest type map, sub-divided land cover map, continuous cadastral map). Forested area was calculated according to the statistics and spatial data for Wonju, Gangwon-do, and the forest area between statistics and spatial data was quantitatively compared. In terms of the definition of forest and minimum partitioning criteria, the FBS and digital forest type maps were similar, and the land cover map, CSAR, and continuous cadastral maps were different in these aspects. About forest area, there was a difference in each forestry data. The highest was CSAR(61,406 ha) and the lowest was Sub-divided Land Cover Map(57,818 ha). This is thought to be because there were some types of spatial areas that were classified as forest in the digital forest type map but classified as cropland, grassland, settlement, and bare land in the sub-divided land cover map and continuous cadastral map. Moreover, in the case of the continuous cadastral map, it is thought that there was an error in the area calculation due to differences between the land category in the map and the actual land use status, which led to differences in the calculated area between different types of spatial data. For future statistics and spatial data, appropriate measures should be established to address the issue of the differences between the calculated area due to misclassification during visual reading, and the difference between the land category in the map and the actual land use status. The calculated forest area should be used for research on the definition of forest, the purposes of map production, and production methods for each type of information and data","PeriodicalId":51802,"journal":{"name":"Forest Science and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1087","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2022.2072406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Securing reliable data on forest areas is necessary for the establishment of various policies and decision-making for forest administration. In this study, the definition of forest, minimum partitioning criteria, purpose of production, production method, and period of update were analyzed, which were prescribed for the statistics (Forest Basic Statistics [FBS] and Cadastral Statistical Annual Report [CSAR]) and spatial data (digital forest type map, sub-divided land cover map, continuous cadastral map). Forested area was calculated according to the statistics and spatial data for Wonju, Gangwon-do, and the forest area between statistics and spatial data was quantitatively compared. In terms of the definition of forest and minimum partitioning criteria, the FBS and digital forest type maps were similar, and the land cover map, CSAR, and continuous cadastral maps were different in these aspects. About forest area, there was a difference in each forestry data. The highest was CSAR(61,406 ha) and the lowest was Sub-divided Land Cover Map(57,818 ha). This is thought to be because there were some types of spatial areas that were classified as forest in the digital forest type map but classified as cropland, grassland, settlement, and bare land in the sub-divided land cover map and continuous cadastral map. Moreover, in the case of the continuous cadastral map, it is thought that there was an error in the area calculation due to differences between the land category in the map and the actual land use status, which led to differences in the calculated area between different types of spatial data. For future statistics and spatial data, appropriate measures should be established to address the issue of the differences between the calculated area due to misclassification during visual reading, and the difference between the land category in the map and the actual land use status. The calculated forest area should be used for research on the definition of forest, the purposes of map production, and production methods for each type of information and data
统计资料与空间专题图的森林面积差异比较分析
摘要获取可靠的森林面积数据是制定森林管理各项政策和决策的必要条件。本文分析了统计数据(森林基本统计[FBS]和地籍统计年报[CSAR])和空间数据(数字森林类型图、土地覆盖细分图、连续地籍图)规定的森林定义、最小分区标准、生产目的、生产方法和更新周期。根据江原道原州市的统计数据和空间数据计算森林面积,并对统计数据和空间数据之间的森林面积进行定量比较。FBS与数字森林类型图在森林定义和最小分划标准方面相似,而土地覆被图、CSAR图和连续地籍图在这些方面存在差异。关于森林面积,各林业数据存在差异。最高的是CSAR(61,406 ha),最低的是细分土地覆盖图(57,818 ha)。这可能是因为在数字森林类型图中,有些类型的空间区域被划分为森林,而在细分土地覆盖图和连续地籍图中,被划分为耕地、草地、聚落和裸地。此外,在连续地籍图的情况下,由于地图上的土地类别与实际土地利用状况的差异,被认为在面积计算上存在误差,导致不同类型空间数据之间的计算面积存在差异。对于未来的统计和空间数据,应制定适当的措施,解决目视阅读时因分类错误而导致的计算面积差异,以及地图上的土地类别与实际土地利用状况的差异问题。计算出的森林面积应用于研究森林的定义、制作地图的目的以及各类信息和数据的制作方法
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
21 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信