Volume 24, Issue 2 pp. 222-234
Full Access

Achievements, Concepts and Conflicts in Australian Small-Scale Vegetation Mapping

J. B. KIRKPATRICK

J. B. KIRKPATRICK

Geography Department, University of Tasmania, Box 252C, GPO, Hobart 7001; and Botany Department, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Search for more papers by this author
K. J. M. DICKINSON

K. J. M. DICKINSON

Geography Department, University of Tasmania, Box 252C, GPO, Hobart 7001; and Botany Department, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: October 1986
Citations: 10

Abstract

A large proportion of Australia has had its vegetation mapped at scales between 1:200 000 and 1:2 000 000 in the period 1970 to 1985. Mappers can be divided into those using a deductive approach and those using an inductive approach, these two approaches ideally being complementary rather than antagonistic. Machine mapping from satellite digital reflectance data is possible, but not economically sound unless used for monitoring. Conflicts between the proponents of different mapping notation systems can have no logically-based resolution. The multidimensional clinal nature of variation in natural vegetation means that the best boundaries between mapping units will differ geographically. Thus, there is an unresolvable conflict between compatability and local accuracy.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.