Priorities to Advance Monitoring of Ecosystem Services Using Earth Observation

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 416-428

  Cord, Anna F ^a   Brauman, Kate A ^b   Chaplin Kramer, Rebecca ^c   Huth, Andreas ^a,d,e   Ziv, Guy ^f   Seppelt, Ralf ^a,d,g  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d GERMAN CENTRE FOR INTEGRATIVE BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH IDIV HALLE JENA LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OSNABRÜCK   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^g MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

biodiversity; ecosystem function; ecosystem service demand; ecosystem service supply; remote sensing; standardization

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; EARTH; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; MONITORING SYSTEM; PRIORITIZATION; REMOTE SENSING; SATELLITE ALTIMETRY; STANDARDIZATION;

ASTRONOMY; BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; EARTH (PLANET); ECOSYSTEM;

EID: 85017462495     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.003     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Seppelt, R., et al. Synchronized peak-rate years of global resources use. Ecol. Soc., 19, 2014, 50.
2. Díaz, S., et al. The IPBES conceptual framework − connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 1–16.
3. Liu, J., et al. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 347, 2015, 1258832.
4. Mace, G., et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27 (2012), 19–26.
5. Wu, J., Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 28 (2013), 999–1023.
6. Bennett, E.M., et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 76–85.
7. Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Decision X/2, The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2.
8. European Commission (2011) Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, European Commission.
9. Executive Office of the President of the United States (2015) Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making (M-16-01), US Government.
10. United Nations (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN.
11. Karp, D.S., et al. National indicators for observing ecosystem service change. Glob. Env. Change 35 (2015), 12–21.
12. Maes, J., et al. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), 14–23.
13. Tallis, H., et al. A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. BioScience 62 (2012), 977–986.
14. Skidmore, A., et al. Agree on biodiversity metrics to track from space. Nature 523 (2015), 403–405.
15. Rose, R.A., et al. Ten ways remote sensing can contribute to conservation. Conserv. Biol. 29 (2015), 350–359.
16. de Bello, F., et al. Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodivers. Conserv. 19 (2010), 2873–2893.
17. Duncan, C., et al. The quest for a mechanistic understanding of biodiversity-ecosystem services relationships. Proc. R. Soc. B, 282, 2015, 20151348.
18. de Groot, R., et al. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41 (2002), 393–408.
19. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis, World Resources Institute.
20. Palomo, I., et al. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Adv. Ecol. Res. 54 (2016), 245–283.
21. Brauman, K., et al. Impacts of land-use change on groundwater supply: ecosystem services assessment in Kona, Hawaii. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 141, 2015, A4014001.
22. Cáceres, D.M., et al. The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecol. Soc., 20, 2015, 62.
23. Villamagna, A.M., et al. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol. Complexity 15 (2013), 114–121.
24. Mitchell, M., et al. Reframing landscape fragmentation's effects on ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30 (2015), 190–198.
25. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Raffaelli, D., Frid, C., (eds.) Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, 2010, Cambridge University Press, 110–139.
26. He, K.S., et al. Will remote sensing shape the next generation of species distribution models?. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 1 (2015), 4–18.
27. Cabello, J., et al. The ecosystem functioning dimension in conservation: insights from remote sensing. Biodivers. Conserv. 21 (2012), 3287–3305.
28. Jetz, W., et al. Monitoring plant functional diversity from space. Nat. Plants, 2, 2016, 16024.
29. Corbane, C., et al. Remote sensing for mapping natural habitats and their conservation status − new opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 37 (2015), 7–16.
30. Saatchi, S., et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 (2011), 9899–9904.
31. Pütz, S., et al. Long-term carbon loss in fragmented Neotropical forests. Nat. Commun., 5, 2014, 5037.
32. Scholes, R.J., et al. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social-ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (2013), 16–25.
33. Seppelt, R., et al. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 48 (2011), 630–636.
34. Pereira, H., et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339 (2013), 277–278.
35. O'Connor, B., et al. Earth observation as a tool for tracking progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 1 (2015), 19–28.
36. Boyd, J., et al. Ecosystem services indicators: improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses. Int. Rev. Env. Res. Econ. 8 (2016), 359–443.
37. Scullion, J., et al. Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews. Env. Conserv. 38 (2011), 426–434.
38. Künzer, C., Tuan, V.Q., Assessing the ecosystem services value of Can Gio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve: combining earth-observation- and household-survey-based analyses. Appl. Geogr. 45 (2013), 167–184.
39. Samberg, L.H., et al. Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 2016, 124010.
40. Nativi, S., et al. Big Data challenges in building the Global Earth Observation System of Systems. Environ. Model. & Softw. 68 (2015), 1–26.
41. Fritz, S., et al. Geo-Wiki: an online platform for improving global land cover. Environ. Model. & Softw. 31 (2012), 110–123.
42. Keeler, B.L., et al. Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13 (2015), 76–81.
43. R Development Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
44. Turner, W., et al. Free and open-access satellite data are key to biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 182 (2015), 173–176.
45. Guay, K.C., et al. Vegetation productivity patterns at high northern latitudes: a multi-sensor satellite data assessment. Glob. Change Biol. 20 (2014), 3147–3158.
46. Yu, Y., et al. Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Glob. Env. Change 23 (2013), 1178–1186.
47. Dalin, C., et al. Evolution of the global virtual water trade network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109 (2011), 5989–5994.
48. MacDonald, G.K., et al. Rethinking agricultural trade relationships in an era of globalization. BioScience 65 (2015), 275–298.
49. Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Identifying species threat hotspots from global supply chains. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 2017, 0023.
50. Crowther, T.W., et al. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature 525 (2015), 201–205.
51. Donchyts, G., et al. Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6 (2016), 810–813.
52. Fritz, S., et al. Mapping global cropland and field size. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21 (2015), 1980–1992.
53. Meyfroidt, P., et al. Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (2013), 438–444.
54. Alcaraz-Segura, D. et al. eds (2013) Earth Observation of Ecosystem Services, CRC Press.
55. Cord, A.F., et al. Sustainable development goals: monitor ecosystem services from space. Nature, 525, 2015, 33.
56. Ayanu, Y.Z., et al. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services supplies and demands: a review of remote sensing applications. Environ. Sci. Techn. 46 (2012), 8529–8541.
57. Andrew, M.E., et al. Potential contributions of remote sensing to ecosystem service assessments. Prog. Phys. Geog. 38 (2014), 328–353.
58. de Araujo Barbosa, C.C., Remote sensing of ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecol. Indic. 52 (2015), 430–443.
59. Strauch, M., Volk, M., SWAT plant growth modification for improved modeling of perennial vegetation in the tropics. Ecol. Model. 269 (2013), 98–112.
60. Patel, N.N., et al. Multitemporal settlement and population mapping from Landsat using Google Earth Engine. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 35 (2015), 199–208.
61. Jean, N., et al. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science 353 (2016), 790–794.
62. Galbraith, S.M., et al. Remote sensing and ecosystem services: current status and future opportunities for the study of bees and pollination-related services. Curr. Forestry Rep. 1 (2015), 261–274.
63. Sharp, R., et al. InVEST User's Guide. 2014, The Natural Capital Project.
64. Villa, F., et al. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS ONE, 9, 2014, e91001.
65. Eigenbrod, F., et al. The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 47 (2010), 377–385.
66. Shackleton, C.M., Pandey, A.K., Positioning non-timber forest products on the development agenda. For. Policy Econ. 38 (2014), 1–7.
67. Ticktin, T., The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. J. Appl. Ecol. 41 (2004), 11–21.
68. Srivastava, V.K., Anitha, D., Mapping of non-timber forest products using remote sensing and GIS. Trop. Ecol. 51 (2010), 107–116.
69. Yang, X., et al. Mapping non-wood forest product (Matsutake mushrooms) using logistic regression and a GIS expert system. Ecol. Model. 198 (2006), 208–218.
70. Elith, J., Leathwick, J.R., Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40 (2009), 677–697.
71. Shugart, H.H., et al. Computer and remote-sensing infrastructure to enhance large-scale testing of individual-based forest models. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13 (2015), 503–511.
72. Christian, B., Krishnayya, N.S.R., Classification of tropical trees growing in a sanctuary using Hyperion (EO-1) and SAM algorithm. Curr. Sci. 96 (2009), 1601–1607.
73. Schaafsma, M., et al. Towards transferable functions for extraction of non-timber forest products: a case study on charcoal production in Tanzania. Ecol. Econ. 80 (2012), 48–62.
74. Peres, C.A., Lake, I.R., Extent of nontimber resource extraction in tropical forests: accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon Basin. Conserv. Biol. 17 (2003), 521–535.
75. Keeler, B.L., et al. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109 (2012), 18619–18624.
76. Inglada, J., et al. Assessment of an operational system for crop type map production using high temporal and spatial resolution satellite optical imagery. Remote Sens. 7 (2015), 12356–12379.
77. Giardino, C., et al. BOMBER: a tool for estimating water quality and bottom properties from remote sensing images. Comput. Geosc. 45 (2012), 313–318.
78. Odermatt, D., et al. Review of constituent retrieval in optically deep and complex waters from satellite imagery. Remote Sens. Env. 118 (2012), 116–126.
79. Ritchie, J.C., et al. Remote sensing techniques to assess water quality. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 69 (2003), 695–704.
80. Matthews, M.W., A current review of empirical procedures of remote sensing in inland and near-coastal transitional waters. Int. J. Remote Sens. 32 (2011), 1–45.
81. Balmford, A., et al. Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol, 13, 2015, e1002074.
82. Bateman, I.J., et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341 (2013), 45–50.
83. Schägner, J.P., et al. Mapping recreational visits and values of European National Parks by combining statistical modelling and unit value transfer. J. Nat. Conserv. 31 (2016), 71–84.
84. van Zanten, B.T., et al. Continental-scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113 (2016), 12974–12979.
85. Molinier, M., et al. Detecting man-made structures and changes in satellite imagery with a content-based information retrieval system built on Self-Organizing Maps. IEEE T. Geosci. Remote 45 (2007), 861–874.
86. Gao, F., et al. Moving vehicle information extraction from single-pass WorldView-2 imagery based on ERGAS-SNS analysis. Remote Sens. 6 (2014), 6500–6523.
87. Matzarakis, A., et al. Applications of a universal thermal index: physiological equivalent temperature. Int. J. Biometeorol. 43 (1999), 76–84.
88. Kim, M.K., Daigle, J.J., Monitoring of vegetation impact due to trampling on Cadillac Mountain summit using high spatial resolution remote sensing data sets. Env. Manag. 50 (2012), 956–968.