## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Observed Class (Reference)**} \\ \hline  & & \begin{tabular}{c} **Boulders** \\ **and Rocks** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Coral/** \\ **Algae** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Hard-Bottom** \\ **Dense Algae** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Hard-Bottom** \\ **Sparse Algae** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Muddy** \\ **Bottom** \\ \end{tabular} & **Sand** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Seagrass** \\ **Dense** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Seagrass** \\ **Sparse** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **User’s** \\ **Accuracy** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Boulders and Rocks**} & **0.04** & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 85.7\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Coral/Algae**} & 0.02 & **5.75** & 1.13 & 0.33 & 0.00 & 0.16 & 0.27 & 0.17 & 73.5\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Hardbottom**} & 0.06 & 1.16 & **16.11** & 1.27 & 0.00 & 0.35 & 0.41 & 0.70 & 80.4\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Hardbottom**} & 0.13 & 1.27 & 1.65 & **11.42** & 0.00 & 2.92 & 0.63 & 4.19 & 51.4\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Muddy Bottom**} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & **0.65** & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.09 & 87.5\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sand**} & 0.17 & 1.62 & 0.46 & 0.40 & 0.29 & **26.94** & 1.04 & 0.75 & 85.0\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Seagrass Dense**} & 0.03 & 0.21 & 0.27 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.09 & **4.52** & 0.31 & 82.3\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Seagrass Sparse**} & 0.00 & 1.13 & 0.35 & 0.91 & 0.35 & 0.61 & 1.95 & **6.67** & 55.8\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Producer’s Accuracy**} & 9.2\% & 51.6\% & 80.7\% & 79.4\% & 50.1\% & 86.8\% & 51.3\% & 51.8\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Accuracy assessment of the Caribbean benthic habitat product using 2686 field data points collected between 2010–2017 with reef classes combined. The reported overall accuracy is 72% (not shown in the table). The numbers in the diagonal cells (depicted in bold) represent the proportion of total area correctly classified for each benthic class. Classes along the top of the table (columns) represent the observed (reference) data, and the classes on the left side (rows) represent the predicted (map) classes. All numbers reported in each table represent the proportion of the total area. critical habitats, enabling resource managers to have a much-improved characterization and understanding of their marine resources. When compared to existing global databases, these maps provide updated area numbers for each benthic habitat class. For example, current UNEP-WCMC Global Distribution of Coral Reefs (Version 4.1) [58; 68] data estimate 7400 km\({}^{2}\) of coral reef habitat throughout the Insular Caribbean compared to the 10,373 km\({}^{2}\) total area calculated using the new regional maps (using a Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection). This represents a coral reef area difference of 2964 km\({}^{2}\). The area discrepancies are variable by Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The difference in area were not consistent between geographies. The PS image-derived maps estimate an additional 3637 km\({}^{2}\) of coral reef area across the Bahama and the Turks and Caicos Banks and 546 km\({}^{2}\) fewer coral reef area across the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico). Cuba had 467 km\({}^{2}\) less coral reef area, 115 km\({}^{2}\) less in the Cayman Islands, and 75 km\({}^{2}\) less in Jamaica. When compared to the global datasets, the new maps estimate 11 km\({}^{2}\) more coral reef area in the Dominican Republic, 12 km\({}^{2}\) more in Haiti, and 111 km\({}^{2}\) more in Puerto Rico. Within the Virgin Islands and Eastern Caribbean, the maps estimate 127 km\({}^{2}\) less coral reef area. The global data appear to largely overestimate coral reef area within the Greater Antilles and Eastern Caribbean. This may be due to the coarse pixel size and aggregation of reef areas.