Identifying strengths and limitations of pan-European forest cover maps through spatial comparison

Abstract

Detailed and harmonized information on spatial forest distribution is an essential input for forest-related environmental assessments, in particular, for biomass and growing stock modeling. In the last years, several mapping approaches have been developed in order to provide such information for Europe in a harmonized way. Each of these maps exhibits particular properties and varies in accuracy. Yet, they are often used in parallel for different modeling purposes. A detailed spatial comparison seemed necessary in order to provide information on the advantages and limitations of each of these forest cover maps in order to facilitate their selection for modeling purposes.

This article confronts the high-resolution forest cover map recently developed by the Joint Research Centre for the year 2000 (FMAP2000) with previously existing maps for the same time period: the CORINE Land Cover 2000 (CLC2000) and the Calibrated European Forest Map 1996 (CEFM1996). The spatial comparison of these three maps was carried out based on forest proportion maps of 1 km derived from the original maps. To characterize differences according to biogeographic regions, two criteria were used: detail of thematic content within each map and local spatial agreement.

Concerning thematic content, CLC2000 displayed a surfeit of non-forested areas at the cost of low forest proportions, while FMAP2000 showed a more balanced distribution likely to preserve more detail in forest spatial pattern. Good spatial agreement was found for CLC2000 and FMAP2000 within about 70% of the study area, while only 50% agreement was found when compared with CEFM1996. The largest spatial differences between all maps were found in the Alpine and Mediterranean regions. Reasons for these might be different input data and classification techniques and, in particular, the calibration of CEFM1996 to reported national statistics.

Keywords:

• forest cover maps
• spatial agreement
• proportion maps
• pan-European scale

Acknowledgements

The authors thank their colleagues Pieter Kempeneers, Fernando Sedano, and Giuseppe Amatulli of the JRC FOREST Action for fruitful discussion and constructive criticism. Thanks to Tracy Houston Durrant for the language review.

Notes

1. EPSG: European Petrol Survey Group (http://www.epsg.org/).