More accurate less meaningful? Why quality indicators do not unveil the socio-technical practices inscribed into land use maps

Remote sensing plays an important role for modern geography and environmental science. At the same time, it often stands on a weak epistemological foundation. Remote sensing results are mostly treated as strictly objective, context-independent artifacts. This vastly ignores the human practices that led to these results. Thus, remote sensing data are uncritically incorporated into (environmental) policy decision-making processes without understanding exactly how they were generated. Recent research has been critical of this. In a previous study, I showed that the accuracy of land use results can be increased by class aggregation, while the geographic or environmental meaning of the results suffers. I called this provocatively the “more accurate, less meaningful (MALM)” effect and showed that it exists regardless of the technical level of classification. In this study, I discuss the extent to which MALM can be remedied by choosing an appropriate quality indicator. I show that, to the largest extent conceivable, the quality indicator does not and cannot unveil the effects of socio-technical practices, which are materially inscribed into land use maps. Hence, quality indicators are unable to objectivize the effects of practices and values by the researchers. Consequently, they do not solve the MALM problem. On the contrary, I show that the explicit inclusion of geographic knowledge in quality addresses the MALM effect to the largest extent possible. This reinforces my claim that more attention needs to be paid to considering the values and practices behind remote sensing information. I discuss the results in a broad context and argue that and why critical remote sensing based on critical (physical) geography and science-and-technology studies is vital to better incorporate such results into policymaking.