Inter-observer variation in habitat survey data: investigating the consequences for professional practice

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2016

• Venue

  Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

• Publication date

  2016-10-02

• Fields of study

  Geography, Environmental Science

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1080/09640568.2015.1090961
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Ecology and Environmental Management

  2019cited by this paper
• Scientific Reproducibility, Human Error, and Public Policy.

  2015cited by this paper
• Operator bias in software-aided bat call identification

  2014cited by this paper
• Building capacity for ecological assessment using diatoms in UK rivers

  2013cited by this paper
• Sampling techniques and inter-surveyor variability as sources of uncertainty in Polish macrophyte metric for lake ecological status assessment

  2013cited by this paper
• It counts who counts: an experimental evaluation of the importance of observer effects on spotlight count estimates

  2013cited by this paper
• Quantifying uncertainties in biologically-based water quality assessment: a pan-European analysis of lake phytoplankton community metrics

  2013cited by this paper
• Observer bias and detection probability in underwater visual census of fish assemblages measured with independent double-observers

  2013cited by this paper
• On the Reliability of Expert Identification of Small-Medium Sized Mammals from Camera Trap Photos

  2013cited by this paper
• Introduction to environmental impact assessment

  2013cited by this paper
• Ecological mitigation measures in English Environmental Impact Assessment.

  2013cited by this paper
• Observer Effects and Avian-Call-Count Survey Quality: Rare-Species Biases and Overconfidence

  2012cited by this paper
• Identification versus counting protocols as sources of uncertainty in diatom-based ecological status assessments

  2012influential reference
• Species misidentification in mixed hake fisheries may lead to overexploitation and population bottlenecks

  2012cited by this paper
• Monitoring in the presence of species misidentification: the case of the Eurasian lynx in the Alps

  2012cited by this paper
• The repeatability of vegetation classification and mapping.

  2011influential reference
• Misidentification of freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia:Unionidae): contributing factors, management implications, and potential solutions

  2011cited by this paper
• Abundance of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in three Alaskan regions, corrected for observer errors due to perception bias and species misidentification, and corrected for animals submerged from view

  2010cited by this paper
• Testing the reliability of assessment of land management impacts on Scottish upland vegetation

  2010cited by this paper
• Unmodeled observation error induces bias when inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence via aural detections.

  2010cited by this paper
• First audit of macroinvertebrate samples from an EU Water Framework Directive monitoring program: human error greatly lowers precision of assessment results

  2010cited by this paper
• Uncertainty in WFD assessments for rivers based on macroinvertebrates and RIVPACS Integrated catchment

  2009influential reference
• Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data

  2008cited by this paper
• A double‐observer method for reducing bias in faecal pellet surveys of forest ungulates

  2008cited by this paper
• Observer Bias in Anuran Call Surveys

  2007cited by this paper
• Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom

  2007cited by this paper
• Interobserver Variation in Frog Call Surveys

  2007cited by this paper
• Uncertainty in Diatom Assessment: Sampling, Identification and Counting Variation

  2006cited by this paper
• The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches

  2006cited by this paper
• Assessing the impact of errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samples

  2006cited by this paper
• Assessment of sources of uncertainty in macrophyte surveys and the consequences for river classification

  2006cited by this paper
• National Vegetation Classification: Users’ handbook

  2006influential reference
• Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods : major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS

  2006cited by this paper
• Handbook of biodiversity methods : survey, evaluation and monitoring

  2005cited by this paper
• Repeatability of Phase 1 habitat survey.

  2004influential reference
• Observer error in exit counts of flying-foxes (Pteropus spp.)

  2004cited by this paper
• Assessing species misidentification rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring

  2003cited by this paper
• Accuracy and variation in estimates of large numbers of birds by individual observers using an aerial survey simulator

  2003cited by this paper
• VARIABILITY IN GRASSLAND BIRD COUNTS RELATED TO OBSERVER DIFFERENCES AND SPECIES DETECTION RATES

  2003cited by this paper
• Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment

  2002cited by this paper
• Omission and Commission Errors in the Field Mapping of Linear Boundary Features: Implications for the Interpretation of Maps and Organization of Surveys

  2001cited by this paper
• Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques

  2000cited by this paper
• Quality assurance and RIVPACS.

  2000cited by this paper
• Vegetation Mapping: From Patch to Planet

  2000cited by this paper
• Lack of precision in mapping upland habitats and preliminary conservation assessments.

  2000cited by this paper
• Road Developments in the UK: An Analysis of Ecological Assessment in Environmental Impact Statements Produced between 1993 and 1997

  2000cited by this paper
• The reliability of ‘Phase 1’ habitat mapping in the UK: the extent and types of observer bias

  1999influential reference
• A REVIEW OF THE QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS IN THE SCOTTISH FOREST SECTOR

  1999cited by this paper
• Between‐observer variation in the application of a standard method of habitat mapping by environmental consultants in the UK

  1999influential reference
• SOURCES OF COUNTING ERROR IN ESTIMATIONS OF THE TROPHIC DIATOM INDEX

  1997cited by this paper
• The Ecological Component of Environmental Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of British Environmental Statements

  1997cited by this paper
• A review of ecological mitigation measures in UK environmental statements with respect to sustainable development

  1997cited by this paper
• Locational Errors in Maps from Environmental Surveys and Their Implications for Information Extraction

  1996cited by this paper
• Extracting information from river corridor surveys

  1996cited by this paper
• Botanical recording, distribution maps and species frequency

  1996cited by this paper
• An investigation of uncertainty in field habitat mapping and the implications for detecting land cover change

  1995influential reference
• Ecological assessment of proposed road developments: a review of environmental statements

  1993cited by this paper
• River macrophyte sampling : methodologies and variability

  year unknowncited by this paper

• Towards enhancing field‐based vegetation monitoring: A deep learning approach for species coverage estimation from ground‐level imagery

  2025cites this paper
• Inter-observer reliability in forest conservation value assessments

  2025cites this paper
• How variation among field assessments can affect biodiversity offset outcomes

  2025cites this paper
• A bayesian inference approach for reducing inter-investigator variability in sampling-based land cover classification

  2024cites this paper
• Do you see what I see? Variation in detection, identification and enumeration of mammals during transect surveys

  2023cites this paper
• Quantification of accuracy in field‐based land cover maps: A new method to separate different components

  2021cites this paper
• An expert system for the conservation of Atlantic estuarine wet meadows: application to a Natura 2000 site in France

  2021cites this paper
• The impact of inter-observer variability on the accuracy, precision and utility of a commonly-used grassland condition index

  2020cites this paper
• Developing and using statistical tools to estimate observer effect for ordered class data: The case of the IBP (Index of Biodiversity Potential)

  2020cites this paper
• Vegetation unit assignments: phytosociology experts and classification programs show similar performance but low convergence

  2020cites this paper
• The Implications of Field Worker Characteristics and Landscape Heterogeneity for Classification Correctness and the Completeness of Topographical Mapping

  2018cites this paper
• The Irish Vegetation Classification – An Overview of Concepts, Structure and Tools

  2018cites this paper
• Land cover in Norway based on an area frame survey of vegetation types

  2018cites this paper
• Point of view: error estimation in field assignment of land-cover types

  2018cites this paper
• Consistency in land‐cover mapping: Influence of field workers, spatial scale and classification system

  2018influential citation