P u b l i s h i n g

Australian Journal
of Experimental Agriculture

Volume 41, 2001

© CSIRO 2001

. . . a journal publishing papers at the cutting edge

of applied agricultural research

All enquiries and manuscripts should be directed to:

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture
CSIRO Publishing
PO Box 1139 (150 Oxford Street)
Collingwood, Vic. 3066, Australia

Telephone: +61 3 9662 7614

Fax: +61 3 9662 7611
Email: ajea@publish.csiro.au

Published by CSIRO Publishing

for the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM)

w w w. p u b l i s h . c s i r o . a u / j o u r n a l s / a j e a
 Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2001, 41, 557–566

Assessing positional accuracy and its effects on rice crop area

measurement: an application at Coleambally Irrigation Area

T. G. Van NielABC and T. R. McVicarA

ACSIRO Land and Water, PO Box 1666, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
BCooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice Production, Yanco, NSW 2703, Australia.
CCorresponding author; e-mail: thomas.van.niel@cbr.clw.csiro.au

Abstract. If management decisions are based on geospatial data that have not been assessed for spatial accuracy,
then debate about both the measurements and the decisions themselves can occur. This debate, in part, can be
avoided by evaluating the spatial accuracy of geospatial data, leading to heightened confidence in both the data and
the decisions made from the data. To increase the effectiveness of environmental compliance monitoring, the spatial
accuracies of 2 Geographic Information System datasets were estimated at the Coleambally Irrigation Area, New
South Wales. The first, high-resolution digital aerial photography acquired in January 2000, is the Geographic
Information System baseline data for Coleambally Irrigation Area. The second, Digital Topographic Data Base
roads data, although not a reference dataset at Coleambally Irrigation Area, is often used as a baseline dataset across
Australia. Neither dataset met the National Mapping Council of Australia’s standard of map accuracy, so a new
version of the digital aerial photography was created that did. The positional accuracy of the improved dataset was
over 4 times more accurate than the Digital Topographic Data Base roads dataset and over 2.5 times more accurate
than the original digital aerial photography. It was also found that the overall areal error of paddocks measured from
the improved dataset decreased as more paddock areas were added together; a finding that has a direct impact on
management decisions at Coleambally Irrigation Area. This study both provides a demonstration of how to assess
and improve spatial accuracy and shows that this process is not unduly complicated.

Additional keywords: GIS, remote sensing, spatial accuracy, areal accuracy.

Introduction
The ‘Green Revolution’ in rice farming of the late 1960s
denotes the beginning of the extensive breeding programs
that have led to the many improved rice varieties that are now
planted on more than 60% of the world’s riceland (Khush
1987). This revolution resulted in increases in yield potential
of 2–3 times that of traditional varieties (Khush 1987).
Similar trends have also been seen in the irrigation areas and
districts of southern New South Wales (NSW) as the local
breeding program has produced many improved varieties of
rice adapted to local growing conditions since the 1960s.
Increases in area of rice planted, rice quality and paddy yield
resulted (Brennan et al. 1994).
Initially, rice area restrictions in southern NSW were
defined mainly by the capacity of the local industry to
profitably supply the crop to market (Humphreys et al.
1994). Profitable market conditions led to drastically
increased rice area in the region by the 1970s, which in turn
resulted in the development of high watertables and risk of
large tracts of land becoming salt affected. This prompted the
initiation of environmental restrictions on rice farming in the
early 1990s in which maximum allowable rice area per farm
was reduced by setting limitations on both rice paddock
water use (e.g. 16 ML/ha.season), and the soils on which rice
could be grown (e.g. 2–3 m of medium to heavy clay)
(Humphreys et al. 1994). These environmental restrictions
have brought about the need to monitor the spatial
interactions between soil suitability and crop type in order to
ascertain landholder compliance. In the search for more time
and cost-effective methods for monitoring environmental
compliance, many have turned to remote sensing and
Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies for
assistance.
These technologies are considered desirable because of
their combined strength in regard to spatial extent, temporal
density, relative low costs, and potential for early and rapid
estimation of biophysical phenomenon (McVicar and Jupp
1998). These strengths have led specifically to successes in
the measurement of both soil properties and crop type area,
resulting in widespread use of the technologies for these
applications (McCloy et al. 1987; Quarmby et al. 1992; Fang
et al. 1998; Hume et al. 1999; Okamoto and Kawashima
1999; Beecher et al. 2001).
However, when comparisons of different geospatial data
are necessary (e.g. soil suitability and crop type), the related
spatial concepts of positional accuracy and uncertainty

© CSIRO 2001 10.1071/EA00140 0816-1089/01/040557

558
become exceedingly important (Lowell and Jaton 1999).
Understanding the spatial accuracies of interacting
geospatial datasets is critical for proper spatial analysis (Van
Niel and McVicar 2000). Without this knowledge,
management decisions based on spatial data cannot be made
with confidence, cannot be justified scientifically, and spatial
models developed from the data are potentially misleading
(Alesheikh et al. 1999; Griffith et al. 1999).
Positional accuracy and positional uncertainty are defined
as a deviation in the position of a feature in a GIS or on a map
compared with the feature’s real world or ‘true’ position
(Davis and Keller 1997; Goodchild and Hunter 1997). This
departure from ‘truth’ is called positional uncertainty when
the magnitude of the deviation is unknown, whereas it is
called positional accuracy when the deviation is known
(Davis and Keller 1997; Alesheikh et al. 1999). Positional
uncertainty can be propagated for a number of reasons
including: imprecise measurement, processing error, natural
variability and interpreter subjectivity (Davis and Keller
1997; De Groeve et al. 1999).
Of these, interpreter subjectivity is often less of a problem
in agricultural systems than in natural environments. This is
because subjectivity describes the ambiguity of a boundary
in the real world. Since anthropogenic systems tend to have
discrete boundaries (e.g. paddocks or roads), these systems
afford the geospatial data user the luxury of concentrating on
whether the boundary line is in the correct place instead of
the more basic question of whether the boundary exists at all
(De Groeve et al. 1999). The growing importance placed on
understanding and identifying subjectivity and spatial
uncertainty imposes new ways of conceptualising spatial
data for many users.
One example is the visualisation of boundaries. Since the
position of a boundary line or feature on a map or in a GIS is
most likely not the same as it is in the real world, boundaries
should be visualised as a belt or swath around the line on the
map, which contains the ‘true’ position (Goodchild and
Hunter 1997). Since smaller scale maps represent larger
ground areas, this error swath generally has a width that is
inversely related to the geographic scale of the data source.
For example, a 1:50 000 scale map is drawn at a larger scale
than a 1:100 000 scale map (i.e. mathematically, 1/50 000 >
1/100 000). Hence 0.5 mm on a 1:50 000 scale map
represents 25 m, whereas 0.5 mm on a 1:100 000 scale map
represents 50 m.
This error swath becomes apparent when positional
accuracy is quantified; as map scale decreases and area
representation gets larger, the expected error increases.
Being able to express or display GIS data at any scale should
not be confused with the original data scale of the spatial
dataset and, therefore, its subsequent positional accuracy or
uncertainty. The general rule is maintained; horizontal
positional accuracy of a GIS dataset will be inversely related
to the geographic scale of its source. However, this
T. G. Van Niel and T. R. McVicar
relationship is not always adequate for geospatial data, thus
a more relevant measure of uncertainty or accuracy than data
source scale is necessary.
This need becomes even more obvious when the
possibility of compounding these uncertainties during
spatial analyses, a process known as error propagation, is
considered. Error propagation can lead to idiosyncratic
results, which may limit the data’s usefulness in
accomplishing management objectives (Alesheikh et al.
1999; De Groeve et al. 1999). As a result, guidelines have
been developed in an attempt to standardise the
quantification and summarisation of positional accuracies in
geospatial data. Before the widespread use of digital
geospatial data, only map accuracy guidelines were defined.
For example, the National Mapping Council of Australia
(NMCA) standard for map accuracy is that not more than
10% of well-defined points shall be in error by more than 0.5
mm on the map (NMCA 1975). However, with the rise in
popularity of GIS, digital geospatial standards have also
been developed. More recently, the US Federal Geographic
Data Committee (FGDC) published the National Standard
for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA), which outlines
positioning accuracy standards and the methodology for
estimating positional accuracy of points on maps and in
digital geospatial data (FGDC 1998a, 1998b). The relevant
standards for agri-environmental GIS data are described in
more detail in Van Niel and McVicar (2000).
The preferred method of assessing positional accuracy is
often comparing sets of identical points on a test dataset with
those on a reference or ‘true’ dataset of higher accuracy
(FGDC 1998b). Although there are recognised problems
with this methodology in identifying well-defined points for
some features, and handling possible biases involved in data
production, it can offer a robust measure of accuracy for
suitable data (Goodchild and Hunter 1997). For example, it
may be impossible to identify matching features on both the
ground and in certain geospatial data [e.g. a Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) of a flat area, or boundaries of a
soils map], whereas it can be quite easily done with other
datasets (e.g. a road network with many intersections, or
boundaries of paddocks). However, when applied
appropriately, this method can provide a common reporting
system for direct comparison of datasets as well as a more
meaningful measure of positional accuracy for geospatial
data than either publication scale or contour interval (FGDC
1998b).
In this paper we assess the positional accuracy of the GIS
baseline data at Coleambally Irrigation Area (CIA) in
southern NSW. The positional accuracy, here, is a measure of
the reliability of the baseline data at CIA. The accuracy of
areal measurements of individual paddocks made from this
baseline is also assessed in order to aid in the management of
environmental compliance. Coleambally Irrigation Limited
(CIL), as the managers of CIA, monitor environmental
Positional accuracy and rice crop area measurement
compliance using high-resolution digital aerial photographs.
Notwithstanding other restrictions, farmers are
environmentally compliant if they have not planted more
than 69 ha rice/year. CIL would like to know how far over
69 ha a measurement made from their baseline aerial
photography must be (i.e. its spatial accuracy) before
management action is justified. For management purposes,
CIL have also set a target areal accuracy of 95% for paddock
measurements from the baseline aerial photography.
Materials and methods
One-hundred and fifty-one high-resolution colour aerial
photographs were acquired in and around the CIA on 8 and 9 January
2000 (Fig. 1), converted to digital format and geo-referenced by a
commercial air survey company. Thirty-six of these photographs cover
the main CIA area, while the rest cover the surrounding outfall drain.
The aerial photography was acquired using a permanently mounted
Leica RC30 camera with a 152 mm lens, flying in a Cessna C421c at a
height of 7742 m. The scale of the photography was 1:50 000, the
aperture settings were 1/1000 s and f4.0, and the format of the negative
was 230 by 230 mm. The photographs were scanned at a resolution of
300 dots per inch using a UMAX Mirage D16L scanner running
Binuscan software. Digital image geo-referencing was achieved using
a ZIImagine product called IRAS-C in conjunction with Microstation
SE (Van Niel and McVicar 2000).
Individual images were geo-referenced by the air survey company
using Ground Control Points (GCPs) provided by CIL. The processed
digital images were provided to CIL in geo-referenced JPEG format
(herein called tiles). The tiles had 2 by 2 m pixel size over the CIA and
were resampled to a 4 by 4 m pixel size in the surrounding areas
(Fig. 1). The GCPs used for geo-referencing were delineated by CIL
New South Wales
4m
20
Figure 1. Location of the Coleambally Irrigation Area (CIA) in southern New South Wales. The outer grey polygon
represents the extent of 4 m pixel size resolution, while the inner grey polygon represents the extent of 2 m pixel size
resolution. The innermost black polygon represents the Coleambally Irrigation Area boundary.
559
from well-defined features in the northern part of the CIA from a
1:50 000 scale GIS coverage purchased from the NSW Land
Information Centre (LIC). GCPs in the southern part of the CIA were
delineated from Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS).
DGPS points were collected by CIL because the LIC data were believed
to be substandard in the south of the CIA, whereas it was believed to be
more reliable in the north of the CIA. Because of this perceived
inaccuracy, CIL does not use, for example, the Digital Topographic
Data Base (DTDB) roads data purchased from NSW LIC as a GIS
baseline although it is commonly used for this purpose in Australia.
Field work
Eighty-five GCPs independent of those previously used for
geo-referencing were collected over the CIA using a Trimble Pro XRS
DGPS from 5 to 8 May 2000 (Fig. 2). GCPs were identified before the
field trip from 1:250 000 and 1:100 000 scale map sheets to define
identifiable points that would provide an adequate distribution over the
study area. Since CIL collected DGPS points in the south of the CIA in
1999 to correct for the inaccuracies in the DTDB GIS data, more GCPs
were gathered in the north to create an even distribution of points north
and south. GCPs were selected that were plotable at 0.25 mm on the
aerial photograph’s source scale, or 12.5 m at 1:50 000 scale, as per the
Australian national map accuracy standards (NMCA 1975). GCPs
identified on the maps were road–road intersections and canal–road
intersections. Points collected in the field matched the points identified
on the maps whenever possible. Points collected in the field that were
not previously identified on the maps were described in the field notes
and marked on the appropriate map sheets. These GCPs were then
digitised in ArcView, including detailed location descriptions. The full
dataset is presented in Van Niel and McVicar (2000).
Digital image processing
Thirty-six of the JPEG tiles covering the CIA were converted to
Erdas Imagine image format. The central 50% of all 36 tiles (east–west)
2m
CIA
0 20 40 km
560
N the reference dataset’s positions. The output report meets the horizontal
5 0 5 10 km
Figure 2. Location of 85 Differential Global Positioning System
points collected at Coleambally Irrigation Area. The 64 empty points
were used for registration, while the 21 solid points were used for
accuracy assessment. The Coleambally Irrigation Area boundary is
displayed as the black line and roads are displayed as grey lines.
were subset out and used to create a mosaic image, denoted ‘Mosaic’.
This process was meant to improve the internal geometry of the mosaic
as seen by more seamless stitch lines. This mosaic image was then
re-registered using 64 of the 85 DGPS points; 21 points were chosen
arbitrarily as every fourth point and were left out of all re-registration
calculations so that they would be an independent validation of both the
original mosaic and the resultant re-registered mosaics. This image is
referred to as ‘Mosaic/Re-registered’.
Since the northern and southern tiles of the CIA were originally
geo-registered from 2 separate data sources, points digitised from a GIS
dataset in the north and DGPS collected by CIL in the south, the mosaic
image was re-registered again to see if better accuracies could be obtained
by processing the north and south independently. This was to allow for a
block offset to be applied to the southern section and a separate block offset
to be applied to the northern section. After these sections were re-registered,
they were joined together again using the same 64 of the 85 DGPS points
to form a second re-registered mosaic image, referred to as
‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’. The same 21 DGPS points were again
withheld to test the horizontal accuracy of this image.
Horizontal positional accuracy assessment
Australian national map accuracy standards require that not more
than 10% of well-defined points be in error by more than the distance
defined by 0.5 mm on the original map scale. Since the DTDB data and
the 2000 aerial photographs are both 1:50 000 scale, this allowable error
distance is 25 m. A horizontal positional accuracy assessment tool was
created using ArcView and is available on the internet (Van Niel 2000;
Van Niel and McVicar 2000). The tool was designed to report positional
(horizontal) accuracy to national map accuracy standards in both
Australia and the United States. The user must define 2 input point GIS
datasets of the same features: (i) the ‘reference’ (or ‘true’) dataset; and
T. G. Van Niel and T. R. McVicar
(ii) the ‘test’ dataset. The test dataset’s positions are then compared with
positional accuracy requirements for both the Australian and New
Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC) metadata standards and
the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata standards.
The accuracy assessment tool was used to generate all positional
accuracy reports for this application. Accuracy assessment was
calculated for: (i) the DTDB roads GIS dataset, denoted ‘DTDB Road
Intersections’; (ii) the northern half of the DTDB roads GIS dataset,
denoted ‘DTDB North’; (iii) the southern half of the DTDB roads GIS
dataset, denoted ‘DTDB South’; (iv) the image mosaic of the 36 subset
tiles, denoted ‘Mosaic’; (v) the re-registered mosaic of subset tiles,
denoted ‘Mosaic/Re-registered’; and (vi) the second re-registered
mosaic of subset tiles with independent north and south processing,
denoted ‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’.
The ‘reference’ (or ‘true’) dataset source for all of these data are the
DGPS points collected at CIA described in the field work section. The
same 21 DGPS points were used to calculate positional accuracy for the
imagery, while the location of 42 road intersection points were used as
‘reference’ (or ‘truth’) for the assessment of the DTDB roads data. The
associated ‘test’ points were digitised from the DTDB data and the
series of mosaic imagery. The CIA baseline aerial photography was
compared with the DTDB data, to allow for the quantification of
accuracy improvement in relation to a nationally available dataset.
Three of the 42 road intersection points were left out of the overall
‘DTDB Road Intersections’ analysis because they contained
anomalously large differences between the reference and test points; all
were greater than 100 m, while 2 were greater than 300 m. Since the
accuracy assessment methodology used in this application is sensitive to
outliers (Goodchild and Hunter 1997), the inclusion of these anomalous
points would result in an unrepresentative summarisation of the overall
accuracy of the DTDB dataset. However, these points were included in
the analysis of ‘DTDB South’, as they were critical to the quantification
of the perceived inaccuracy of the southern half of the dataset. As a result,
the overall DTDB error presented is understated.
Areal measurement accuracy assessment
The impact of positional accuracy on areal estimation of paddock
sizes was achieved through a comparative sample of field and image
measurements. Many highly accurate paddock boundaries were
delineated using a DGPS for an on-going Electromagnetic (EM-31)
survey project at CIA. The EM-31 data are, among other things, used
for groundwater recharge estimation (Hume et al. 1999). The survey
starts by outlining the edge of a paddock and transects are run every
20 m until a uniform coverage of the paddock is attained. The paddock
boundaries are then digitised to within 5 m of the survey outline. Thirty
of the EM-31 paddock boundaries were used in this study as the
reference (or ‘truth’) to which the area estimates made from
‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’ were compared (Fig. 3). These
30 paddocks were evenly distributed over the CIA and were of varying
sizes, providing a good sample of both internal geometry and paddock
size effects on areal estimation. Refer to Van Niel and McVicar (2000)
for full details.
The mean difference between the area of the 30 reference EM-31
paddocks were compared to the area of the same paddocks delineated
from ‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’ (equation 1). This analysis
resulted in an estimation of the mean areal error and is expressed
mathematically as:
n (EMareai – IMareai)
Σ
i=1 EMareai
Errorareal = × 100 (1)
n
where: EMareai is the area of a paddock delineated from a DGPS during
an EM-31 survey; IMareai is the area of the same paddock delineated
Positional accuracy and rice crop area measurement 561

confidence interval; Errorareal is the mean percentage areal error of the

N sample population; s.d. is the standard deviation calculated from the
sample; and Errorareal90% and Errorareal95% are the 90 and 95%
confidence intervals for the mean percentage areal error estimate for
5 0 5 10 km
CIA.

Figure 3. The 30 paddock boundaries used in the areal difference
analysis. Paddocks are displayed as black polygons, the Coleambally
Irrigation Area boundary is displayed as the black line and roads are
displayed as grey lines.
from ‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’; n is the sample size (30); and
mean Errorareal is the mean percentage areal error estimate for CIA.
Statistics generated from these 30 samples allow the 90 and 95%
confidence intervals to be calculated (equations 2 and 3). These
confidence intervals around the mean difference reveal a safer estimate
than the mean for use in management. In other words, assuming normal
distribution, 90 and 95% of the areal error measurements will be at or
below the values calculated from:
Errorareal90% = Errorareal ± (1.645 × s.d.) (2)
and,
Errorareal95% = Errorareal ± (1.960 × s.d.) (3)
respectively, where: 1.645 is the value from the z-table for 90%
confidence interval; 1.96 is the value from the z-table for 95%
Results
Horizontal positional accuracy assessment
The positional accuracy statistics for the institutionally
provided DTDB data, and the iterations of the mosaiced tiles
for the 2000 aerial photographs are summarised in Table 1.
What can be seen clearly is that each level of processing
improved the accuracy of the data. Of the datasets covering
the entire CIA, the ‘DTDB Road Intersections’ data had the
worst positional accuracy with a mean difference of over
32 m. Also, ‘DTDB North’ was found to be 2.52 times more
accurate than ‘DTDB South’ when measuring mean
difference and 3.70 times more accurate when measuring
root mean square (RMS) error. This supports and quantifies
the perceived imbalance between spatial accuracy of the
DTDB data in the north and south of CIA by CIL GIS
operators.
The image mosaic of the 36 subset tiles, labelled ‘Mosaic’
is the least accurate of the processed image mosaics with a
mean difference of 20.00 m, but is a considerable
improvement over the DTDB data. The re-registered mosaic
of subset tiles, labelled ‘Mosaic/Re-registered’ is again more
accurate than ‘Mosaic’ with a mean difference of 13.51 m.
Finally, the second re-registered mosaic of subset tiles, which
was processed independently in the north and south, labelled
‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’ is the most accurate
dataset.
As seen in Table 1, the DTDB data and the original
mosaic of tiles provided by private contractors do not meet
the Australian national map accuracy standards, whereas the
first re-registered mosaic and the final mosaic do.
‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’ is 3.99 times more accurate
than the DTDB dataset by measurement of mean difference,
and 4.31 times more accurate by measurement of RMS (total
RMS of difference distance, or RMS of difference distance
at the 95% confidence level). ‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and

Table 1. Horizontal positional accuracies calculated at Coleambally Irrigation Area

NSSDA 95% represents the US National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy positional accuracy estimate; this estimate is calculated as the
95% confidence interval of the RMS error

Name Mean diff. RMS diff. RMS X RMS Y NSSDA 95% Exceeding 25 m
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Number (%)
DTDB Road Intersections 32.18 39.26 24.02 31.05 67.95 21 of 39 53.85
DTDB North 29.62 33.96 23.05 24.95 58.79 13 of 24 54.17
DTDB South 74.13 124.48 110.10 58.08 205.82 10 of 18 55.56
Mosaic 20.00 23.01 16.96 15.56 39.83 10 of 21 47.62
Mosaic/Re-registered 13.51 15.43 8.19 13.08 26.71 2 of 21 9.52
Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S. 8.07 9.12 6.23 6.66 15.78 0 of 21 0
562
S.’ is also more accurate than the original tiles; 2.48 times
more accurate when measuring mean difference and
2.52 times more accurate when measuring RMS. However,
the mosaic of the original tiles delivered by the private
contractors (‘Mosaic’) was also an improvement over the
DTDB dataset by 1.69 times when measuring mean
difference and 1.74 when measuring RMS.
Areal measurement accuracy assessment
The 30 EM-31 paddocks had a mean (± s.d.) size of
251159 ± 140382 m2, with a total area of 7534781 m2. The
area for the same 30 paddocks identified from the digital
aerial photography had a mean (± s.d.) of 251719 ±
141063 m2, with a total area of 7551582 m2. The cumulative
area agrees to 99.78% of the cumulative EM-31 area. This
statistic is reported as the analysis of area accuracy by many
previous authors (McCloy et al. 1987; Quarmby et al. 1992;
Fang et al. 1998; Okamoto and Kawashima 1999). However,
due to errors of underestimation and overestimation
cancelling each other out, this cumulative area percentage
statistic has minimal relevance to an individual paddock
analysis. As will be seen forthwith, the individual paddock
areal accuracy is much lower.
Individual paddock-level areal assessment must consider
the distribution of paddock errors about the mean error. This
can be undertaken by assessing both the absolute error (m2)
and the relative error (%) of paddock differences. The mean
absolute error between the 2 measurement methods of the
30 paddocks (EM-31 minus Aerial Photograph) is –560 m2
with a standard deviation of 6596 m2. The maximum and
4
Count
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
Percentage difference
Figure 4. Frequency distribution of the percentage difference between EM-31 paddock areas
and the same paddock areas delineated from ‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’.
T. G. Van Niel and T. R. McVicar
minimum differences are 12301 and –12830 m2,
respectively. The mean relative error (Errorareal) of the
2 measurement methods of the 30 paddocks is –0.33% with
a standard deviation of 2.97%, and the maximum and
minimum relative errors are 5.30 and –6.54%, respectively.
The distribution of the relative errors in paddock area is near
normal (Fig. 4). This allows standard confidence intervals to
be defined. The Errorareal90% value ranges from –5.22% to
+4.86%, or about ± 5%. The Errorareal95% value ranges from
–6.15% to +5.49%, or roughly ± 6%.
The influence on areal error when randomly adding
multiple paddock areas together is summarised in Figure 5.
The mean and upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of
the absolute mean percentage difference between the area
measured from the EM-31 paddock(s) minus the same
paddock(s) from the improved image mosaic are displayed.
Thirty single paddocks (expressed as 1 ‘Paddock
combination number’ in Fig. 5) up to 30 combinations of
15 paddocks added together (expressed as 15 ‘Paddock
combination number’ in Fig. 5) are shown. The decrease in
error is due to the errors of overestimation approximately
offsetting errors of underestimation. The more paddocks that
are measured in the overall area calculation, the more these
errors cancel each other out. The relationship between
paddock area and the absolute percent difference between
the EM-31 paddocks and the same paddocks measured from
the improved image mosaic are displayed in Figure 6. The
low correlation coefficient signifies that larger paddocks are
not consistently associated with small errors.
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Positional accuracy and rice crop area measurement 563

Absolute mean difference (%) 4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Paddock combination number

Figure 5. Absolute mean percentage areal difference measurements were made for the
30 EM-31 survey paddocks compared with the same paddocks delineated from ‘Mosaic/
Re-registered N. and S.’. The error bars represent the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval
for these samples. One-hundred computer-generated calculations were summarised at each
paddock combination number above 1.

Discussion the ‘like-processed’ imagery without negatively affecting the

Horizontal positional accuracy assessment
Increased positional accuracy was seen from the original
‘Mosaic’ to ‘Mosaic/Re-registered’. This is because the
re-registered mosaic was corrected to highly accurate DGPS
points as opposed to reference points defined from a 1:50000
scale GIS dataset. The positional accuracy expected from a
1:50000 map or GIS dataset is 25 m. From the positional
accuracy assessment of the DTDB dataset, we know that
these data were substandard, and thus, we could not even
expect this level of accuracy. Notable improvement occurred
when the overall image was corrected to the DGPS points
instead of the GIS data.
The increased accuracy from ‘Mosaic/Re-registered’ to
‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’ was also due to the
dichotomy present in the processing of the original tiles.
Since the northern tiles of the CIA were geo-corrected to
1:50 000 scale data and the tiles in the southern section were
geo-corrected to DGPS points, the overall image mosaic
was, essentially, 2 different products. This difference was
prominent in the accuracy assessment of the original image
mosaic; much better accuracies were found in the south than
in the north. The best overall accuracy was obtained when
these two sections were processed independently. Processing
these sections separately allowed for an appropriate shift of
imagery of the other section. This processing essentially
corrected both the north and the south to DGPS points
independently and allowed for a more uniformly accurate
image mosaic.
Both the DTDB GIS layer and original tile ‘Mosaic’ were
not compliant with Australian national map accuracy
standards. This means that neither was reliable regarding
positional accuracy. The final image product of this
application does meet these map accuracy standards and for
this reason is considered both more reliable and defensible.
However, the positional accuracy reported for the DTDB data
in this application is not necessarily representative of that
dataset over other areas in Australia. It does, however, reveal
the need for Australian mapping agencies to quantify and
record spatial accuracy associated with the digital geospatial
data that they supply to users. In order to do this, the
Australian geospatial community must first define spatial
accuracy and reporting methodology standards.
Areal measurement accuracy assessment
The mean areal error (Errorareal) measured during this
application for all 30 paddocks is –0.33%. This error is
extremely low because of the overestimation/
underestimation error cancellation discussed earlier. That is,
564 T. G. Van Niel and T. R. McVicar

6
Absolute difference (%)
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
Paddock area (ha)

Figure 6. Relationship between absolute percentage difference and paddock area for
30 measured paddocks (r2 = 0.097). Paddock area is based on the EM-31 areal measurements,
whereas absolute difference is based on the absolute areal difference between the EM-31
paddocks and the same paddocks delineated from ‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’.

when several areas are added together, the overestimates are
often almost exactly offset by the underestimates, resulting in
a good overall estimation of area (McCloy et al. 1987;
Quarmby et al. 1992; Fang et al. 1998; Okamoto and
Kawashima 1999). This cancellation occurs if the error is
normally distributed around zero (Fig. 4). Errorareal is an
appropriate statistic for estimation of crop areal error only
when the total sum of many area measurements is calculated
(e.g. regional crop area calculated through summation of
multiple farm or paddock measurements). However, since
individual paddock areal error estimates must consider the
distribution of error around the mean, the error estimate for
any single measurement generally increases. This can be seen
from the error distribution (Fig. 4), where most of the
individual areal measurements have errors that are well above
or below the mean. That is why Errorareal95%, for example, is
an appropriate statistic for estimation of areal error when the
crop area of an individual paddock is measured.
Errorareal95%, however, drops considerably when the
area of more than one paddock is added together (Fig. 5).
For example, adding the area of 2 paddocks results in about
a ± 4% error threshold defined by the 95% confidence
interval. Based on this analysis, when 4 paddocks were
added together, the error threshold dropped to about ± 3%
defined by the 95% confidence interval. Since this error
approaches zero as the number of paddocks added together
becomes larger (Fig. 5), CIL should have more confidence
in the overall areal estimation as the number of paddocks
added increases. This means that some cancellation of error
can be expected when even just a few measurements are
added together, resulting in an error estimate that is
somewhere between the 2 extremes of the mean and
individual error statistics. Unexpectedly, individual error
measurements were not strongly related to paddock size
(Fig. 6). This relationship might be stronger if some of the
sources of error were eliminated, specifically, those of
imprecise measurement and interpreter subjectivity. These
sources of error probably weaken the relationship
considerably, since they can affect small paddocks as well as
large ones.
Based on the error calculated from the 95% confidence
interval, paddock area measurements made from the
‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’ image cannot be considered
greater than 69 ha until they exceed: 73.14 ha for a single
paddock; 71.76 ha for the combined area of 2 paddocks;
71.07 ha for the combined area of 3–5 paddocks; and
70.38 ha for the combined area of 6 or more paddocks.
When the area measurements made from
‘Mosaic/Re-registered N. and S.’ exceed these values, it is
recommended that CIL staff measure the area of the
paddocks in question using a DGPS and discuss results with
the appropriate farmer(s). If these values prove to be
cumbersome for practical management of CIA, more
suitable confidence intervals may be used to define different
Positional accuracy and rice crop area measurement
allowable areas. A change to a 99% confidence interval will
result in overall larger area threshold values than listed
above. This would mean that fewer farms would need to be
checked with a DGPS, but potentially more farms exceeding
69 ha would go unchecked. If the values are recalculated
using a 90% confidence interval, fewer farms that exceeded
69 ha would go unchecked, but this would mean more
manual checking of paddocks on the ground. Hence, the
analysis of the baseline data is only recommended to initiate
further in situ measurement of individual farmers
environmental compliance by CIL.
Conclusions
Calculation of positional and areal accuracy of GIS data
can increase both management effectiveness and confidence
in the decisions made from the data. In this example, it
allowed CIL to make more quantitative spatial management
decisions as well as provided a scientific justification for
their actions. Increasing the positional accuracy of their
digital aerial photographs by over 2.5 times allowed for
better overall management of the system. Providing a tool for
positional accuracy quantification will allow CIL to develop
and maintain a high level of effectiveness as new spatial data
are incorporated into their GIS database. It will also aid in
the calculation of error propagation in any spatial models
created from this data.
Quantifying the areal accuracy of CILs baseline dataset
also expanded the utility of their GIS greatly for monitoring
environmental compliance. This allowed for the proper use
of the data in regard to making specific management
decisions. That is, since the accuracy of the data is known,
management decisions can be made by CIL in accord with
this accuracy. We expect that the assessment of positional
and areal accuracy is relevant to many agri-environmental
GIS data custodians because of the widespread use of GIS
and the impact of spatial accuracy on management of
agricultural systems.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Cooperative Research
Centre for Sustainable Rice Production and CSIRO Land
and Water. The authors thank Arun Tiwari, Janelle Dufty,
and Greg Robertson of Coleambally Irrigation Limited for
their professional assistance in this project. Thanks are also
due to Ray Jones at Airesearch Pty Ltd for technical
information concerning the original air photo acquisition
and processing, to Dr Jeff Wood, CSIRO Mathematical and
Information Sciences for statistical advice, to Warrick
Dawes and Susan Cuddy, CSIRO Land and Water, for their
prompt and useful editing suggestions, and to anonymous
reviewers, whose valuable suggestions greatly improved this
paper. The horizontal accuracy extension and the pdf
version of the technical report are downloadable at:
http://www.ricecrc.org/. ArcView is a trademark of
565
Environmental Systems Research Institute. Erdas Imagine
is a registered trademark of Erdas Inc. Please note, mention
of commercial products in this work does not imply an
endorsement of that product by either CSIRO or
Coleambally Irrigation Limited.
References
Alesheikh AA, Blais JAR, Chapman MA, Karimi H (1999) Rigorous
geospatial data uncertainty models for GISs. In ‘Spatial accuracy
assessment: land information uncertainty in natural resources’.
(Eds K Lowell, A Jaton) pp. 195–202. (Ann Arbor Press: Chelsea,
Michigan, USA)
Beecher HG, Hume IH, Dunn BW (2001) Improved method for
assessing rice soil suitability to restrict recharge. Australian Journal
of Experimental Agriculture 42 (in press).
Brennan JP, Lewin LG, Marshall GR, Reinke RF (1994) An economic
assessment of rice breeding in New South Wales. Australian Journal
of Experimental Agriculture 34, 889–896.
Davis TJ, Keller CP (1997) Modelling and visualizing multiple spatial
uncertainties. Computers and Geosciences 23, 397–408.
De Groeve T, Lowell K, Thomson K (1999) Super ground truth as a
foundation for a model to represent and handle spatial uncertainty.
In ‘Spatial accuracy assessment: land information uncertainty in
natural resources’. (Eds K Lowell, A Jaton) pp. 189–193.
(Ann Arbor Press: Chelsea, Michigan, USA)
Fang HL, Wu BF, Liu HY, Huang X (1998) Using NOAA AVHRR and
Landsat TM to estimate rice area year-by-year. International
Journal of Remote Sensing 19, 521–525.
FGDC (1998a) ‘Geospatial positioning accuracy standards. Part 1.
Reporting methodology.’ Federal Geographic Data Committee,
FGDC-STD-007.1-1998, Reston, Virginia, USA.
FGDC (1998b) ‘Geospatial positioning accuracy standards. Part
3.National standard for spatial data accuracy.’ Federal Geographic
Data Committee, FGDC-STD-007.3-1998, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Goodchild MF, Hunter GJ (1997) A simple positional accuracy measure
for linear features. International Journal Geographical Information
Science 11, 299–306.
Griffith DA, Haining RP, Arbia G (1999) Uncertainty and error
propagation in map analyses involving arithmetic and overlay
operations: inventory and prospects. In ‘Spatial accuracy
assessment: land information uncertainty in natural resources’.
(Eds K Lowell, A Jaton) pp. 11–25. (Ann Arbor Press: Chelsea,
Michigan, USA)
Hume IH, Beecher HG, Dunn BW (1999) ‘EM to estimate groundwater
recharge from rice growing.’ Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation, RIRDC-98, Canberra.
Humphreys L, Van Der Lely A, Muirhead W, Hoey D (1994) The
development of on-farm restrictions to minimise recharge from rice
in New South Wales. Australian Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 7, 11–20.
Khush GS (1987) Rice breeding: past, present and future. Journal of
Genetics 66, 195–216.
Lowell K, Jaton A (Eds) (1999) ‘Spatial accuracy assessment: land
information uncertainty in natural resources.’ (Ann Arbor Press:
Chelsea, Michigan, USA)
McCloy KR, Smith FR, Robinson MR (1987) Monitoring rice areas
using Landsat MSS data. International Journal of Remote Sensing
8, 741-749.
McVicar TR, Jupp DLB (1998) The current and potential operational
uses of remote sensing to aid decisions on drought exceptional
circumstances in Australia: a review. Agricultural Systems 57,
399–468.
566 T. G. Van Niel and T. R. McVicar

NMCA (1975) ‘Standards of map accuracy.’ (National Mapping Van Niel TG, McVicar TR (2000) ‘Assessing and improving positional
Council of Australia: Canberra) accuracy and its effects on areal estimation at Coleambally
Okamoto K, Kawashima H (1999) Estimation of rice-planted area in Irrigation Area.’ Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Rice
the tropical zone using a combination of optical and microwave Production, P1-01/00, Yanco, NSW, Australia.
satellite sensor data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 20,
1045–1048.
Quarmby NA, Townshend JRG, Settle JJ, White KH, Milnes M, Hindle
TL, Silleos N (1992) Linear mixture modelling applied to AVHRR
data for crop area estimation. International Journal of Remote
Sensing 13, 415–425.
Van Niel TG (2000). ‘Horizontal accuracy extension.’ Canberra, ACT,
Australia.
http://gis.esri.com/arcscripts/details.cfm?CFGRIDKEY=C03BD2
F2-680F-11D4-943200508B0CB419 Received 2 September 2000, accepted 23 January 2001

http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ajea