The function of remote sensing in support of environmental policy

Remote Sensing

Volumn 2, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1731-1750

  de Leeuw, Jan ^a,b   Georgiadou, Yola ^b   Kerle, Norman ^b   de Gier, Alfred ^b   Inoue, Yoshio ^c   Ferwerda, Jelle ^b   Smies, Maarten ^d   Narantuya, Davaa ^e  

^a INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Kenya)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES   (Japan)

^d Frogs International Environmental Management and Consultancy   (Netherlands)

^e Green Development   (Mongolia)

Author keywords

Earth observation; Environment; Governance; Policy; Remote sensing

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY; OBSERVATORIES; PUBLIC POLICY;

EARTH OBSERVATIONS; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL REMOTE SENSING; GOVERNANCE; POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONS; PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION;

REMOTE SENSING;

EID: 84860390130     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20724292     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/rs2071731     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Gore, A. An Inconvenient Truth. The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It; Rodale Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
2. Johnston, S.; Cordes, J. Public good or commercial opportunity? Case studies in remote sensing commercialization. Space Policy 2003, 19, 23-31.
3. Christian, E. Planning for the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). Space Policy 2005, 21, 105-109.
4. Lautenbacher, C.C. The Global Earth Observation System of Systems: Science serving society. Space Policy 2006, 22, 8-11.
5. Esty, D.C. Environmental protection in the information age. In Public Law and Legal Theory; Research Paper Series 58; Yale Law School: New Haven, CT, USA, 2004.
6. Sabatier, P. The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies. Admin. Sci. Quart. 1978, 23, 396-417.
7. Stone, D. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making; revised ed.; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
8. Sabatier, P.A. Theories of the Policy Process; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 2007.
9. Parsons, W. Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd: Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, 2005.
10. Revenga, C. Developing indicators of ecosystem condition using geographic information systems and remote sensing. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2005, 5, 205-214.
11. Christie, M. Data collection and the ozone hole: Too much of a good thing? In Proceedings of the International Commission on History of Meteorology; ICHM: Mexico City, Mexico, 2004; Volume 1, pp. 99-105.
12. Molina, M.J.; Rowland, F.S. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine atomc-atalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 1974, 249, 810-812.
13. Stolarski, R.S.; Krueger, A.J.; Schoeberl, M.R.; McPeters, R.D.; Newman, P.A.; Alpert, J.C. Nimbus 7 satellite measurements of the springtime Antarctic ozone decrease. Nature 1986, 322, 808-811.
14. Farman, J.C.; Gardiner, B.G.; Shanklin, J.D. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal C10x/NOx interaction. Nature 1985, 315, 207-210.
15. Velders, G.J.M.; Andersen, S.O.; Daniel, J.S.; Fahey, D.W.; McFarland, M. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 4814-4819.
16. NASA. Ozone Watch. Available online: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_1982-10.html (accessed on 22 June 2010).
17. Wu, G.; de Leeuw, J.; Skidmore, A.K.; Prins, H.H.T.; Liu, Y. Concurrent monitoring of vessels and water turbidity enhances the strength of evidence in remotely sensed dredging impact assessment. Water Res. 2007, 41, 3271-3280.
18. Fok, M.; Pang, T. Finless porpoises in Wuhan, China. Newsletter of the Department of Ecology and Biodiversity, The University of Hong Kong 2006, 34, 18-20.
19. Zhong, Y.; Chen, S. Impact of dredging on fish in Poyang Lake. Jiangxi Fish. Sci. Tech. 2005, 1, 15-18.
20. Marklund, L.G.; Schoene, D. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Global Assessment of Growing Stock, Biomass and Carbon Stock; Working paper 106/E; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006; p. 55.
21. Nghiem, S.V.; Rigor, I.G.; Perovich, D.K.; Clemente-Colón, P.; Weatherly, J.W.; Neumann, G. Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, L19504.
22. Chen, J.L.; Wilson, C.R.; Tapley, B.D. Satellite gravity measurements confirm accelerated melting of Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 2006, 313, 1958-1960.
23. IPCC. Climate Change, the Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; p. 881.
24. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: the Physical Basis. Contribution of Working Group I; Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007.
25. GCOS. The Second Report on the Adequacy of the Global Observing Systems for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC; WMO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
26. Jordan, A.; Wurzel, R.K.; Zito, W.A. The rise of 'new' policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Polit. Stud. 2005, 53, 477-496.
27. ESA. Oil and gas producer switches to EO solutions. Success Stories, Earth Observation Market Development 9 January 2003. Available online: http://www.eomd.esa.int/stories/story126.asp (accessed on 20 May 2010).
28. Bocco, G.; Mendoza, M.; Velázquez, A. Remote sensing and GIS-based regional geomorphological mapping-A tool for land use planning in developing countries. Geomorphology 2001, 39, 211-219.
29. IAIA. Priciples of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice; International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, ND, USA, 1996; p. 4.
30. Rodriguez-Bachiller, A.; Glasson, J. Expert Systems and Geographical Information Systems for Impact Assessment; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 2004; p. 400.
31. Khanna, P.V.; Kondawar, K. Application of remote-sensing techniques for environmental impact assessment. Curr. Sci. 1991, 61, 252-256.
32. Hamm, L.; Capobianco, M.; Dette, H.H.; Lechuga, A.; Spanhoff, R.; Stive, M.J.F. A summary of European experience with shore nourishment. Coast. Eng. 2002, 47, 237-264.
33. Van der Vlag, D.E. Modeling and Visualizing Dynamic Landscape Objects and Their Qualities. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2006; p. 181.
34. Rosenqvist, A.C.; Milne, A.; Lucas, R.; Imhoff, M.; Dobson, C. A review of remote sensing technology in support of the Kyoto Protocol. Environ. Sci. Policy 2003, 6, 441-455.
35. IPCC. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use; 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Volume 4.
36. Mollicone, D.; Achard, F.; Federici, S.; Eva, H.D.; Grassi, G.; Belward, A.; Raes, F.; Seufert, G.; Stibig, H.J.; Matteucci, G.; Schulze, E.D. An incentive mechanism for reducing emissions from conversion of intact and non-intact forests. Climate Change 2007, 83, 477-493.
37. Kerle, N.; Heuel, S.; Pfeifer, N. Real-time data collection and information generation using airborne sensors. In Geospatial Information Technology for Emergency Response; Zlatanova, S., Li, J., Eds.; Taylor & Francis/Balkema: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2008; p. 43-74.
38. Busenberg, G.J. Adaptive policy design for the management of wildfire hazards. Amer. Behav. Sci. 2004, 48, 314-326.
39. Fairbrother, A.; Turnley, J.G. Predicting risks of uncharacteristic wildfires: Application of the risk assessment process. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2005, 211, 28-35.
40. Ito, A. Issues in the implementation of the international charter on space and major disasters. Space Policy 2005, 21, 141-149.
41. Messina, J.P.; Delamater, P.L. Defoliation and the war on drugs in Putumayo, Colombia. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 27, 121-128.
42. Ellis, E.A.; Porter-Bolland, L. Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas? A comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2008, 256, 1971-1983.
43. Fuller, D.O. Tropical forest monitoring and remote sensing: A new era of transparency in forest governance? Sing. J. Trop. Geogr. 2006, 27, 15-29.
44. Yeh, A.G.-O.; Li, X. Measurement and monitoring of urban sprawl in a rapidly growing region using entropy. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 2001, 67, 83-90.
45. Kourti, N.; Shepherd, I.; Greidanus, H.; Alvarez, M.; Aresu, E.; Bauna, T.; Chesworth, J.; Lemoine, G.; Schwartz, G. Integrating remote sensing in fisheries control. Fisheries Manag. Ecol. 2005, 12, 295-307.
46. Brekke, C.; Solberg, A.H.S. Oil spill detection by satellite remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 95, 1-13.
47. Ferraro, G.; Bernardini, A.; David, M.; Meyer-Roux, S.; Muellenhoff, O.; Perkovic, M.; Tarchi, D.; Topouzelis, K. Towards an operational use of space imagery for oil pollution monitoring in the Mediterranean basin: A demonstration in the Adriatic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 54, 403-422.
48. Carleer, A.P.; Wolff, E. VHR image region-based classification potential in the framework of the control with remote sensing of the European CAP. In Remote Sensing for Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Hydrology VII; Owe, M., D'Urso, G., Eds.; SPIE: Brugge, Belgium, 2005.
49. Pedersen, B.F. The European way of controlling area based subsidies. In Proceedings of IEEE 2001 International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS'01, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2001; pp. 1639-1641.
50. Rocchio, L. Fighting crop insurance fraud with Landsat. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 2006, 27, 725-727.
51. Gupta, V. Remote sensing and photogrammetry in treaty verification: present challenges and prospects for the future. The Photogrammetric Record 1994, 14, 729-745.
52. Arino, O.; Fernandez-Prieto, D.; Volden, E. Healing the earth, earth observation supporting international environmental conventions. ESA Bull. 2006, 128, 53-60.
53. Kuriyama, I. Supporting multilateral environmental agreement with satellite earth observation. Space Policy 2005, 21, 151-160.
54. Peter, N. The use of remote sensing to support the application of multilateral environmental agreements. Space Policy 2004, 20, 189-195.
55. Niemeyer, I.; Nussbaum, S. Change detection: The potential for nuclear safeguards. In Verifying Treaty Compliance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 335-348.
56. Rosenqvist, A.C.; Finlayson, M.; Lowry, J.; Taylor, D. The potential of long-wavelength satellite-borne radar to support implementation of the Ramsar Wetlands Convention. Aqua. Conserv. Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst. 2007, 17, 229-244.
57. Purdy, R. Satellites: A new era for environmental compliance? J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 2006, 3, 406-413.
58. Macauley, M.; Brennan, T. Enforcing Environmental Regulation: Implications of Remote Sensing Technology; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; p. 49.
59. Boothroyd, P. Policy assessment. In Environmental and Social Impact Assessment; Vanclay, F., Bronstein, D.A., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1996; pp. 83-126.
60. Tian, G.J.; Yang, Z.F.; Xie, Y. Detecting spatiotemporal dynamic landscape patterns using remote sensing and the lacunarity index: A case study of Haikou City, China. Environ. Plan. B-Plan. Design 2007, 34, 556-569.
61. Mohr, L.B. Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995.
62. Smith, E.P. BACI design. In Encyclopedia of Environmetrics; El-Shaarawi, A.H., Piegorsch, W.W., Eds.; John Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2002; pp. 141-148.
63. China bans illegal sand mining on Yangtze River. People's Daily 13 December 2000.
64. Grau, H.R.; Gasparri, N.I.; Aide, T.M. Balancing food production and nature conservation in the Neotropical dry forests of northern Argentina. Glob. Change Biol. 2008, 14, 985-997.
65. ISI. Web of Science. Search for "remote sensing" OR "earth observation" AND "policy" performed on the 3rd of July 2008.
66. Harris, R. Earth observation data policy and Europe. Space Policy 2001, 17, 55-60.
67. Macauley, M.K. The value of information: Measuring the contribution of space-derived earth science data to resource management. Space Policy 2006, 22, 274-282.
68. Hutchinson, C.F. Uses of satellite data for famine early warning in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1991, 12, 1405-1421.
69. Tralli, D.M.; Blom, R.G.; Zlotnicki, V.; Donnellan, A.; Evans, D.L. Satellite remote sensing of earthquake, volcano, flood, landslide and coastal inundation hazards. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2005, 59, 185-198.
70. Moran, M.S.; Inoue, Y.; Barnes, E.M. Opportunities and limitations for image-based remote sensing in precision crop management. Remote Sens. Environ. 1997, 61, 319-346.
71. Apan, A.; Chandler, O.; Young, F.R.; Maraseni, T.N. Opportunities and limitations of remote sensing for crop loss (hail damage) assessment in the insurance industry. In Proceedings of 2005 Spatial Sciences Institute Biennial Conference: Spatial Intelligence, Innovation and Praxis, Melbourne, Australia, September 2005.
72. Atwood, J.; Watts, T.; Price, K.; Kastens, J. The big picture-Satellite remote sensing applications in rangeland assessment and crop insurance. In Agricultural Outlook Forum 2005; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
73. Kalluri, S.; Gilruth, P.; Bergman, R. The potential of remote sensing data for decision makers at the state, local and tribal level: experiences from NASA's Synergy program. Environ. Sci. Policy 2003, 6, 487-500.
74. Baker, J.C.; Williamson, R.A. Satellite imagery activism: Sharpening the focus on tropical deforestation. Sing. J. Trop. Geogr. 2006, 27, 4-14.
75. Faloudi, A.; Waterhout, B. The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan; RTPI Library Series; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
76. Dühr, S. The Visual Language of Spatial Planning: Exploring Cartographic Representations for Spatial Planning in Europe; RTPI Library Series; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
77. Ostrom, E.; Nagendra, H. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 19224-19231.
78. Quevauviller, P. Science-policy interfacing in the context of the WFD implementation. J. Soils Sediments 2006, 6, 259-261.
79. Carton, L.J. Map Making and Map Use in a Multi-Actor Context: Spatial Visualizations and Frame Conflict in Regional Policy Making in the Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2007.
80. Moody, R. Has incrementalism murdered the hype? An assessment of the potential and actual use of geographical information systems in policy design, in ICTs, Citizens and Governance: After the Hype! In Innovation and the Public Sector; Meijer, A., Boersma, K., Wagenaar, P., Eds.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 83-96.