Questions: Field-based ecosystem mapping is prone to observer bias, typically resulting in a mismatch between maps made by different mappers, that is, inconsistency. Experimental studies testing the influence of site, mapping scale, and differences in experience level on inconsistency in field-based ecosystem mapping are lacking. Here, we study how inconsistencies in field-based ecosystem maps depend on these factors.Location: Iskoras and Guollemuorsuolu, northeastern Norway, and Landsvik and Lygra, western Norway.Methods: In a balanced experiment, four sites were field-mapped wall-to-wall to scales 1:5000 and 1:20,000 by 12 mappers, representing three experience levels. Thematic inconsistency was calculated by overlay analysis of map pairs from the same site, mapped to the same scale. We tested for significant differences between sites, scales, and experience-level groups. Principal components analysis was used in an analysis of additional map inconsistencies and their relationships with site, scale and differences in experience level and time consumption were analysed with redundancy analysis.Results: On average, thematic inconsistency was 51%. The most important predictor for thematic inconsistency, and for all map inconsistencies, was site. Scale and its interaction with site predicted map inconsistencies, but only the latter were important for thematic inconsistency. The only experience-level group that differed significantly from the mean thematic inconsistency was that of the most experienced mappers, with nine percentage points. Experience had no significant effect on map inconsistency as a whole.Conclusion: Thematic inconsistency was high for all but the dominant thematic units, with potentially adverse consequences for mapping ecosystems that are fragmented or have low coverage. Interactions between site and mapping system properties are considered the main reasons why no relationships between scale and thematic inconsistency were observed. More controlled experiments are needed to quantify the effect of other factors on inconsistency in field-based mapping.

Background Although a standard taxonomy of organisms has existed for nearly 300 years, no consensus has yet been reached on principles for systematization of ecological diversity (i.e., the co-ordinated variation of abiotic and biotic components of natural diversity). In a rapidly changing world, where nature is under constant pressure, standardized terms and methods for characterization of ecological diversity are urgently needed (e.g., to enhance precision and credibility of global change assessments). Aim The aim is to present the EcoSyst framework, a set of general principles and methods for systematization of natural diversity that simultaneously addresses biotic and abiotic variation, and to discuss perspectives opened by this framework. Innovation EcoSyst provides a framework for systematizing natural variation in a consistent manner across different levels of organization. At each ecodiversity level, EcoSyst principles can be used to establish: (a) an extensive attribute system with descriptive variables that cover all relevant sources of variation; (b) a hierarchical-type system; and (c) a set of guidelines for land-cover mapping that is consistent across spatial scales. EcoSyst type systems can be conceptualized as multidimensional models, by which a key characteristic (the response) is related to variation in one or more key sources of variation (predictors). EcoSyst type hierarchies are developed by a gradient-based iterative procedure, by which the "ecodiversity distance" (i.e., the extent to which the key characteristic differs between adjacent candidate types) is standardized and the ecological processes behind observed patterns are explicitly taken into account. Application We present "Nature in Norway" (NiN), an implementation of the EcoSyst framework for Norway for the ecosystem and landscape levels of ecodiversity. Examples of applications to research and management are given. Conclusion The EcoSyst framework provides a theoretical platform, principles and methods that can complement and enhance initiatives towards a global-scale systematics of ecodiversity.

Questions: Substantial variation between observers has been found when comparing parallel land-cover maps, but how can we know which map is better? What magnitude of error and inter-observer variation is expected when assigning land-cover types and is this affected by the hierarchical level of the type system, observer characteristics, and ecosystem properties? Study area: Hvaler, south-cast Norway. Methods: Eleven observers assigned mapping units to 120 stratified random points. At each observation point, the observers first assigned a mapping unit to the point independently. The group then decided on a 'true' reference mapping unit for that point. The reference was used to estimate total error. 'Ecological distance' to the reference was calculated to grade the errors. Results: Individual observers frequently assigned different mapping units to the same point. Deviating assignments were often ecologically close to the reference. Total error, as percentage of assignments that deviated from the reference, was 35.0% and 16.4% for low and high hierarchical levels of the land-covertype system, respectively. The corresponding figures for inter-observer variation were 42.8% and 19.4%, respectively. Observer bias was found. Particularly high error rates were found for land-cover types characterised by human disturbance. Conclusions: Access to a 'true' mapping unit for each observation point enabled estimation of error in addition to the inter-observer variation typically estimated by the standard pairwise comparisons method for maps and observers. Three major sources of error in the assignment of land-cover types were observed: dependence on system complexity represented by the hierarchical level of the land-cover-type system, dependence on the experience and personal characteristics of the observers, and dependence on properties of the mapped ecosystem. The results support the necessity of focusing on quality in land-cover mapping, among commissioners, practitioners and other end users.