Validation of GIS layers in the EU: getting adapted to available reference data

Figures & data

Table 1. Overlay matrix of LUCAS 2001 point observations with CLC2000.

CLC2000	Artificial	Arable land	Permanent crops	Grassland	Forest and wood	Other	Total
Artificial	1680	244	77	979	489	154	3623
Arable land	862	15,044	449	2186	1470	394	20,405
Permanent crops	107	319	1671	139	302	53	2591
Grassland	355	1300	55	6826	1863	610	11,009
Forest and wood	627	702	214	2168	33,667	2887	40,265
Other	55	44	15	452	1242	5095	6903
Heterogeneous	556	3044	1049	2549	2833	264	10,295
Total	4242	20,697	3530	15,299	41,866	9457	95,091

Figure 1.  Scale differences between CLC and LUCAS in a mixed area in Central France.

Table 2. Proportion of built area estimated with LUCAS 2006 in areas defined by the soil sealing layer values.

Interval (SSL; %)	Built-up in LUCAS (%)	Average SSL	Area (%)
0	2.1	0.0	88.8
1–20	12.2	6.6	8.7
21–40	36.1	28.5	1.5
41–60	55.7	49.5	0.63
61–80	68.5	69.0	0.31
81–99	84.3	89.3	0.10
100	85.4	100.0	0.008

Table 3. Proportion of built area estimated with LUCAS 2006 in areas defined by main CLC classes.

CLC	SSL	Artificial LUCAS	Area (%)	Contribution to total underestimation
Artificial	40.6	48.0	5.1	14.6
Agriculture	1.37	3.88	46.0	45.2
Forest and woodland	0.35	1.84	34.0	19.8
Bareland	0.43	1.33	0.3	0.1
Water	1.13	1.10	1.0	0.0
Heterogeneous	2.49	6.29	13.6	20.2

Figure 2.  Illustration of the indicator used to map overestimation and underestimation of SSL.

Figure 3.  Underestimation and overestimation of the soil sealing layer for three major CLC classes in percentage of the total area of the corresponding CLC class.

Figure 4.  Illustration of the population density downscaling process in the area of Tampere (Finland).