IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v66y2024ics2212041624000056.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Uncertainty audit’ for ecosystem accounting: Satellite-based ecosystem extent is biased without design-based area estimation and accuracy assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Venter, Zander S.
  • Czúcz, Bálint
  • Stange, Erik
  • Nowell, Megan S.
  • Simensen, Trond
  • Immerzeel, Bart
  • Barton, David N.

Abstract

There are currently no guidelines in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) for quantifying and disclosing uncertainty. However, without quantifying uncertainty, it is unclear whether or not accounting tables contain biased (erroneous) area estimates which do not reflect real land cover changes. We use Oslo municipality in Norway as a case study to illustrate best practices in quantifying unbiased area estimates using design-based statistical methods. As input for ecosystem extent accounts, we compared a custom Sentinel-2 land cover map with a globally available one called Dynamic World for 2015, 2018 and 2021. The design-based area estimation involved (i) generating a stratified probability sample of locations using the satellite-based maps to define strata, (ii) assigning ecosystem type labels to the samples using photointerpretation according to a response design protocol, and (iii) applying a stratified area estimator to produce 95% confidence intervals around opening, closing and change stocks in the extent accounting table. We found that pixel counting practices, currently adopted by the SEEA EA community, led to biased extent accounts, particularly for ecosystem conversions, with biases averaging 195% of the true change value derived from design-based methods. We found that the uncertainty inherent in state-of-the-art satellite-based maps exceeded the ability to detect real change in extent for some ecosystem types including water and bare/artificial surfaces. In general, uncertainty in extent accounts is higher for ecosystem type conversion classes compared to stable classes, and higher for 3-yr compared to 6-yr accounting periods. Custom, locally calibrated satellite-based maps of ecosystem extent changes were more accurate (81% overall accuracy) than globally available Dynamic World maps (75%). We suggest that rigorous accuracy assessment in SEEA EA will ensure that ecosystem extent (and consequently condition and service) accounts are credible. A standard for auditing uncertainty in ecosystem accounts is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Venter, Zander S. & Czúcz, Bálint & Stange, Erik & Nowell, Megan S. & Simensen, Trond & Immerzeel, Bart & Barton, David N., 2024. "‘Uncertainty audit’ for ecosystem accounting: Satellite-based ecosystem extent is biased without design-based area estimation and accuracy assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:66:y:2024:i:c:s2212041624000056
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000056
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101599?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. Joachim Maes & Adrián G. Bruzón & José I. Barredo & Sara Vallecillo & Peter Vogt & Inés Marí Rivero & Fernando Santos-Martín, 2023. "Accounting for forest condition in Europe based on an international statistical standard," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Eilifsen, Aasmund & Hamilton, Erin L. & Messier, William F., 2021. "The importance of quantifying uncertainty: Examining the effects of quantitative sensitivity analysis and audit materiality disclosures on investors’ judgments and decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Schägner, Jan Philipp & Brander, Luke & Maes, Joachim & Hartje, Volkmar, 2013. "Mapping ecosystem services' values: Current practice and future prospects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 33-46.
    4. Venter, Zander S. & Barton, David N. & Martinez-Izquierdo, Laura & Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & McPhearson, Timon, 2021. "Interactive spatial planning of urban green infrastructure – Retrofitting green roofs where ecosystem services are most needed in Oslo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Heris, Mehdi & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Rhodes, Charles & Troy, Austin & Middel, Ariane & Hopkins, Krissy G. & Matuszak, John, 2021. "Piloting urban ecosystem accounting for the United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    6. Foody, G.M., 2015. "Valuing map validation: The need for rigorous land cover map accuracy assessment in economic valuations of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 23-28.
    7. Petersen, Jan-Erik & Mancosu, Emanuele & King, Steven, 2022. "Ecosystem extent accounts for Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    8. Edens, Bram & Maes, Joachim & Hein, Lars & Obst, Carl & Siikamaki, Juha & Schenau, Sjoerd & Javorsek, Marko & Chow, Julian & Chan, Jessica Ying & Steurer, Anton & Alfieri, Alessandra, 2022. "Establishing the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting as a global standard," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    9. Hein, Lars & Remme, Roy P. & Schenau, Sjoerd & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Lof, Marjolein E. & Horlings, Edwin, 2020. "Ecosystem accounting in the Netherlands," 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. Banerjee, Onil & Crossman, Neville & Vargas, Renato & Brander, Luke & Verburg, Peter & Cicowiez, Martin & Hauck, Jennifer & McKenzie, Emily, 2020. "Global socio-economic impacts of changes in natural capital and ecosystem services: State of play and new modeling approaches," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    2. Comte, Adrien & Sylvie Campagne, C. & Lange, Sabine & Bruzón, Adrián García & Hein, Lars & Santos-Martín, Fernando & Levrel, Harold, 2022. "Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    3. Grover, Isobella & O'Reilly-Wapstra, Julianne & Suitor, Shaun & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2023. "Not seeing the accounts for the forest: A systematic literature review of ecosystem accounting for forest resource management purposes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    4. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Ingram, Jane Carter & Shapiro, Carl D. & La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Vallecillo, Sara & Casey, C. Frank & Glynn, Pierre D. & Heris, Mehdi P. & Johnson, Justin A. & Lau, 2021. "Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    5. Vári, Ágnes & Adamescu, Cristian Mihai & Balzan, Mario & Gocheva, Kremena & Götzl, Martin & Grunewald, Karsten & Inácio, Miguel & Linder, Madli & Obiang-Ndong, Grégory & Pereira, Paulo & Santos-Martin, 2024. "National mapping and assessment of ecosystem services projects in Europe – Participants’ experiences, state of the art and lessons learned," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    6. Bekri, Eleni S. & Kokkoris, Ioannis P. & Skuras, Dimitrios & Hein, Lars & Dimopoulos, Panayotis, 2024. "Ecosystem accounting for water resources at the catchment scale, a case study for the Peloponnisos, Greece," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    7. Song, Xiao-Peng, 2018. "Global Estimates of Ecosystem Service Value and Change: Taking Into Account Uncertainties in Satellite-based Land Cover Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 227-235.
    8. Sylla, Marta, 2024. "The application of ecosystem accounting principles at the local scale for a protected landscape: A case study of the Sleza Landscape Park in Poland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    9. Jiang, Wei & Lü, Yihe & Liu, Yuanxin & Gao, Wenwen, 2020. "Ecosystem service value of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau significantly increased during 25 years," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    10. Dennis Fixler & Julie L. Hass & Tina Highfill & Kelly M. Wentland & Scott A. Wentland, 2024. "Accounting for Environmental Activity: Measuring Public Environmental Expenditures and the Environmental Goods and Services Sector in the US," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Environmental Public Goods: A National Accounts Perspective, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina & Schmücker, Dirk & Albert, Christian, 2021. "Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    12. Sylla, Marta & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Whitham, Charlotte & Pártl, Adam & Vačkářová, Davina, 2021. "Methodological and empirical challenges of SEEA EEA in developing contexts: Towards ecosystem service accounts in the Kyrgyz Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    13. Lamprinakis, L. & Rodriguez, D. G. P. & Prestvik, A. S. & Veidal, A. & Klimek, B., 2017. "31 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1705 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON FOOD SYSTEM DYNAMICS A Mixed Methods Approach Towards Mapping and Economic Valuation of the Divici-Pojejena Wetland Ecosystem," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276889, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    14. Joachim Maes & Adrián G. Bruzón & José I. Barredo & Sara Vallecillo & Peter Vogt & Inés Marí Rivero & Fernando Santos-Martín, 2023. "Accounting for forest condition in Europe based on an international statistical standard," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Susan C. Cook-Patton & C. Ronnie Drever & Bronson W. Griscom & Kelley Hamrick & Hamilton Hardman & Timm Kroeger & Pablo Pacheco & Shyla Raghav & Martha Stevenson & Chris Webb & Samantha Yeo & Peter W., 2021. "Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 11(12), pages 1027-1034, December.
    16. Jens Abildtrup & Anne Stenger, 2022. "Report on valuation methods," Working Papers hal-04068881, HAL.
    17. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Oksana Logvinenko, 2020. "A New Look at the Natural Capital Concept: Approaches, Structure, and Evaluation Procedure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    18. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    19. Vorstius, Anne Carolin & Spray, Christopher J., 2015. "A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 75-83.
    20. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.

    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:66:y:2024:i:c:s2212041624000056. 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.