IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v64y2023ics221204162300058x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How remote sensing choices influence ecosystem services monitoring and evaluation results of ecological restoration interventions

Author

Listed:
  • del Río-Mena, Trinidad
  • Willemen, Louise
  • Vrieling, Anton
  • Nelson, Andy

Abstract

Large-scale ecological restorations are recognized worldwide as an effective strategy to combat environmental degradation and promote sustainability. Remote sensing (RS) imagery, such as obtained from Landsat and Sentinel-2 satellites, can provide spatial, spectral, and temporal information on ecosystem service supply to support monitoring and evaluation of restoration interventions. However, because of the abundance of satellite data and methodological analysis options, choices in data selection and processing options need to be made. This study explored the effect of RS choices on the evaluation of changes in ecosystem services as a result of ecological restoration interventions. Using the ecosystem service of forage provision for wildlife as an example, we used a before-after-control-impact (BACI) analysis to compare how the following choices affected restoration evaluation outcomes: a) different number of control pixels; b) different spatial distribution of control pixels; c) intra-annual image selection; and d) different reference periods. In addition, e) we evaluated the effect of using two different satellite sensor types, using the ecosystem service ‘erosion prevention’ as an example. We explored the effect of these five choices for restoration sites in the Baviaanskloof, South Africa. Results showed that the choice of intra-annual image selection, and the reference period describing the ‘before state’ had a strong effect on the outcomes, often leading to opposite BACI evaluation results. BACI results were less sensitive to choices related to the number of control points in the evaluation. The impact of methodological choices on the BACI outcomes was greater for the less degraded areas of our study site. Satellite sensor choice resulted in similar temporal trajectories of estimated supply. We demonstrated that RS choices have a strong effect on the evaluation results of restoration interventions. Therefore, we recommend that documenting the key RS choices results is essential when communicating restoration evaluation results in order to properly understand, manage and adapt restoration initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • del Río-Mena, Trinidad & Willemen, Louise & Vrieling, Anton & Nelson, Andy, 2023. "How remote sensing choices influence ecosystem services monitoring and evaluation results of ecological restoration interventions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:64:y:2023:i:c:s221204162300058x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101565
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204162300058X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101565?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stafford, William & Birch, Catherine & Etter, Hannes & Blanchard, Ryan & Mudavanhu, Shepherd & Angelstam, Per & Blignaut, James & Ferreira, Louwrens & Marais, Christo, 2017. "The economics of landscape restoration: Benefits of controlling bush encroachment and invasive plant species in South Africa and Namibia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 193-202.
    2. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    3. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    4. Martínez-Harms, María José & Quijas, Sandra & Merenlender, Adina M. & Balvanera, Patricia, 2016. "Enhancing ecosystem services maps combining field and environmental data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 32-40.
    5. Richard B. Bradbury & Stuart H. M. Butchart & Brendan Fisher & Francine M. R. Hughes & Lisa Ingwall-King & Michael A. MacDonald & Jennifer C. Merriman & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Anne-Sophie Pellier & David , 2021. "The economic consequences of conserving or restoring sites for nature," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 602-608, July.
    6. Willemen, Louise, 2020. "It’s about time: Advancing spatial analyses of ecosystem services and their application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. van de Water, Antoinette & Henley, Michelle & Bates, Lucy & Slotow, Rob, 2022. "The value of elephants: A pluralist approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    3. Philip J. Platts & Marije Schaafsma & R. Kerry Turner & Neil D. Burgess & Brendan Fisher & Boniface P. Mbilinyi & Pantaleo K. T. Munishi & Taylor H. Ricketts & Ruth D. Swetnam & Antje Ahrends & Biniam, 2023. "Inequitable Gains and Losses from Conservation in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(3), pages 381-405, November.
    4. Hugé, J. & Rochette, A.J. & de Béthune, S. & Parra Paitan, C.C. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Vandervelden, T. & Van Passel, S. & Vanhove, M.P.M. & Verbist, B. & Verheyen, D. & Waas, T. & Janssens, I. & Jansse, 2020. "Ecosystem services assessment tools for African Biosphere Reserves: A review and user-informed classification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    5. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    6. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    7. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    10. Robbie Maris & Mark Holmes, 2023. "Economic Growth Theory and Natural Resource Constraints: A Stocktake and Critical Assessment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 255-268, June.
    11. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Wanxu Chen & Guangqing Chi & Jiangfeng Li, 2020. "Ecosystem Services and Their Driving Forces in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    14. O'Sullivan, Jane N., 2020. "The social and environmental influences of population growth rate and demographic pressure deserve greater attention in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    15. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    16. Moreno-Llorca, R. & Vaz, A.S. & Herrero, J. & Millares, A. & Bonet-García, F.J. & Alcaraz-Segura, D., 2020. "Multi-scale evolution of ecosystem services’ supply in Sierra Nevada (Spain): An assessment over the last half-century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    17. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    18. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    19. Lau, Jacqueline D. & Hicks, Christina C. & Gurney, Georgina G. & Cinner, Joshua E., 2018. "Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 91-98.
    20. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:64:y:2023:i:c:s221204162300058x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.