This paper reviews how remotely sensed data have been used to understand the impact of urbanization on global environmental change. We describe how these studies can support the policy and science communities’ increasing need for detailed and up-to-date information on the multiple dimensions of cities, including their social, biological, physical, and infrastructural characteristics. Because the interactions between urban and surrounding areas are complex, a synoptic and spatial view offered from remote sensing is integral to measuring, modeling, and understanding these relationships. Here we focus on three themes in urban remote sensing science: mapping, indices, and modeling. For mapping we describe the data sources, methods, and limitations of mapping urban boundaries, land use and land cover, population, temperature, and air quality. Second, we described how spectral information is manipulated to create comparative biophysical, social, and spatial indices of the urban environment. Finally, we focus how the mapped information and indices are used as inputs or parameters in models that measure changes in climate, hydrology, land use, and economics.

Spatial uncertainty refers to unknown error and vagueness in geographic data. It is relevant to land change and urban growth modelers, soil and biome scientists, geological surveyors and others, who must assess thematic maps for similarity, or categorical agreement. In this paper I build upon prior map comparison research, testing the effectiveness of similarity measures on misregistered data. Though several methods compare uncertain thematic maps, few methods have been tested on misregistration. My objective is to test five map comparison methods for sensitivity to misregistration, including sub-pixel errors in both position and rotation. Methods included four fuzzy categorical models: fuzzy kappa's model, fuzzy inference, cell aggregation, and the epsilon band. The fifth method used conventional crisp classification. I applied these methods to a case study map and simulated data in two sets: a test set with misregistration error, and a control set with equivalent uniform random error. For all five methods, I used raw accuracy or the kappa statistic to measure similarity. Rough-set epsilon bands report the most similarity increase in test maps relative to control data. Conversely, the fuzzy inference model reports a decrease in test map similarity.