Search for: All records

Abstract ContextLand-cover class definitions are scale-dependent. Up-scaling categorical data must account for that dependence, but most decision rules aggregating categorical data do not produce scale-specific class definitions. However, non-hierarchical, empirically derived classification systems common in phytosociology define scale-specific classes using species co-occurrence patterns. ObjectivesEvaluate tradeoffs in class precision and representativeness when up-scaling categorical data across natural landscapes using the multi-dimensional grid-point (MDGP)-scaling algorithm, which generates scale-specific class definitions; and compare spectral detection accuracy of MDGP-scaled classes to ‘majority-rule’ aggregated classes. MethodsVegetation maps created from 2-m resolution WorldView-2 data for two Everglades wetland areas were scaled to the 30-m Landsat grid with the MDGP-scaling algorithm. A full-factorial analysis evaluated the effects of scaled class-label precision and class representativeness on compositional information loss and detection accuracy of scaled classes from multispectral Landsat data. ResultsMDGP‐scaling retained between 3.8 and 27.9% more compositional information than the majority rule as class-label precision increased. Increasing class-label precision and information retention also increased spectral class detection accuracy from Landsat data between 1 and 8.6%. Rare class removal and increase in class-label similarity were controlled by the class representativeness threshold, leading to higher detection accuracy than the majority rule as class representativeness increased. ConclusionsWhen up-scaling categorical data across natural landscapes, negotiating trade-offs in thematic precision, landscape-scale class representativeness and increased information retention in the scaled map results in greater class-detection accuracy from lower-resolution, multispectral, remotely sensed data. MDGP-scaling provides a framework to weigh tradeoffs and to make informed decisions on parameter selection. 

Abstract BackgroundIn recent years public health research has shifted to more strengths or asset-based approaches to health research but there is little understanding of what this concept means to Indigenous researchers. Therefore our purpose was to define an Indigenous strengths-based approach to health and well-being research. MethodsUsing Group Concept Mapping, Indigenous health researchers (N = 27) participated in three-phases. Phase 1: Participants provided 218 unique responses to the focus prompt “Indigenous Strengths-Based Health and Wellness Research…” Redundancies and irrelevant statements were removed using content analysis, resulting in a final set of 94 statements. Phase 2: Participants sorted statements into groupings and named these groupings. Participants rated each statement based on importance using a 4-point scale. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to create clusters based on how statements were grouped by participants. Phase 3: Two virtual meetings were held to share and invite researchers to collaboratively interpret results. ResultsA six-cluster map representing the meaning of Indigenous strengths-based health and wellness research was created. Results of mean rating analysis showed all six clusters were rated on average as moderately important. ConclusionsThe definition of Indigenous strengths-based health research, created through collaboration with leading AI/AN health researchers, centers Indigenous knowledges and cultures while shifting the research narrative from one of illness to one of flourishing and relationality. This framework offers actionable steps to researchers, public health practitioners, funders, and institutions to promote relational, strengths-based research that has the potential to promote Indigenous health and wellness at individual, family, community, and population levels.