THE ROLES OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND CITIZEN SCIENCE IN ...€¦ · Support for the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process - ENV.D.3/SER/2017/0010 - The roles of new technologies and citizen

Page 1

THE ROLES OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND CITIZEN SCIENCE IN MONITORING NATURA 2000

Mediterranean networking event

4th Natura 2000 monitoring workshop, San Lúcar de Barrameda (Spain) /9-11April 2019

Consortium Information: Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen Marine Research, Wageningen UR In cooperation with: NatureBureau Ltd. Regional Environmental Centre Estonian University of Life Sciences Terra Ecogest Mãe d’Agua

Support for the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process - ENV.D.3/SER/2017/0010 - The roles of new technologies and citizen science in monitoring Natura 2000. Networking event. San Lúcar de Barrameda (Spain), April 2019

Page 2

Prepared by Terra Ecogest

Authors Carlos Sunyer (Biogeographical Process, Terra Ecogest) Theo vander Sluis (Biogeographical Process, WENR) Sander Mücher (Wageningen Environmental Research) Anne Schmidt (Biogeographical Process, WENR) Kristijan Čivić (Eurosite) Ellen Meulman (BIJ12)

Version final

Date 7 October

Reviewed by Carlos Sunyer, Theo van der Sluis,

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the organisation team, special thanks to Kristijan Čivić (Eurosite) and Ricardo Díaz-Delgado (Estación Biológica de Doñana), who made this networking event possible.

Recommended citation

Sunyer, C., Van der Sluis, T.; Müncher, S.; Schmidt, A.; Čivić, K.; Meulman, E.2019. ‘The roles of new technologies and citizen science in monitoring Natura 2000’. Networking event in Support of the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process. San Lúcar de Barrameda, Spain. (ENV.D.3/SER/2017/0010).

Disclaimer

This report presents the (summary) of the discussions held at the workshop, and by no means presents the opinion of the facilitators or consortium members of the Biogeographical Process (BGP).

Link to more information on the Mediterranean Biogeographical Region

Cover picture: Drone used for bird censuses (C. Sunyer)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/knowledge_base/135_mediterranean_region_en.htm


Page 3

Contents

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5

2. Workshop topics ................................................................................................................. 6

3. Results of interactive sessions ............................................................................................ 8

4. Contribution to the Mediterranean Road Map ................................................................ 15

5. References ........................................................................................................................ 16

Annex I. Interactive sessions methodology ............................................................................. 17

Annex II. Full answers to Interactive session 1 ........................................................................ 20

Annex III. Pictures ..................................................................................................................... 26


Page 4

Summary

The 4thEurositeNatura 2000 monitoring workshop on “the roles of new technologies and

citizen science”, was held in April 2019in San Lúcar de Barrameda, Spain. It was organised by

Eurosite together with the Estación Biológica de Doñana. It was carried out as a spin-off of

the last Mediterranean Biogeographic Process Seminar (Cyprus, 2017).

A total of 50 experts participated in two interactive sessions to explore:

- New opportunities and challenges for remote sensing techniques for scientists, decision

makers and practitioners in conservation/Natura 2000 management.

- What actions should be taken, and by whom, to get the new technologies applied in

monitoring Natura 2000 on an EU scale and in a (more) consistent way.


Page 5

1. Introduction

The Second Mediterranean Seminar, held in Cyprus in 2017, showed the increasing interest

on the potential of the new technologies for Natura 2000 Biogeographic Process. It

highlighted the need of training in remote sensing tools and recommended the organisation

of a workshop on citizen science and early warning systems (García & Múgica, 2017).

Responding to this interest, a networking event was organised within the Eurosite4th Natura

2000 monitoring workshop “The roles of new technologies and citizen science”, in San Lúcar

de Barrameda (Spain) the 9-11 April 2019. This conference had a wider audience, covering all

biogeographical regions of Europe.

The networking event fitted well the theme of theworkshop because it was a meeting of

some of the most relevant EU experts in using the new technologies in relation to Natura

2000 and species conservation, thus being an opportunity to explore the opportunities and

challenges of the new technologies for the Natura 2000 Biogeographic Process, and

specifically for the conservation and management of species and Natura 2000 sites.

The Conference included a field visit to Doñana National Park, and different technologies

were discussed during the workshop as part of the daily operations for habitat and species

monitoring.

During the Workshop two interactive sessions were organised with the aim of receiving as

much as possible input from all participants for the process.The conclusions were reported

and discussed in the plenary (see annex 1 for the methodology used during the sessions).

The first interactive session (9th April) was devoted to exploring the opportunities and

challenges for remote sensing techniques for scientists, decision makers and practitioners in

conservation/Natura 2000 management. The results are summarised in Chapter 3 and more

detailed information is found in Annex 2.

The second session (10th April) was focused on requiredactions, and by whom, to get the

new technologies implemented in monitoring Natura 2000 on a European scale and in a

more consistent way. The results are summarised in Chapter 4.


Page 6

2. Workshop topics

Remote sensing

Remote sensing has been defined as the science of obtaining information from an object,

area or phenomenon through a distance devise (Vandenborre et al, 2011). It involves two

main types of operations: acquisition of data, which may beobtained from a wide range of

satellites and airborne sensors, and the extraction of information, for which many analytical

tools have been developed.

The presentations at the workshop showed that remote sensing has been proven usefulfor a wide range of uses in relation to nature conservation and Natura 2000, at site and regional level, including:

- Mapping habitat distribution

- Site selection

- Monitoring of the conservation status of habitats

- Early warning forcertain drivers and pressures

- Monitoring invasive alien species

- Habitat quality assessment, using spatial indicators (e.g. fragmentation, patch sizes) and

biophysical and biochemical indicators (cover, chlorophyll, leaf area), useful also

forclimate policies, the valuation of ecosystem services. Or monitoring pests (e.g. Xylella

fastidiosa).

However, despite its potential for nature conservationit is still not included in the operational work, the ‘toolbox’ of many of the conservation agencies, and it is generally limited to pilot studies. There is still much to do to transfer knowledge of remote sensing to site managers (Vandenborre et al., 2017; Dias-Delgado et al, 2017).

Drones

The use of drones, also known as UAV (unmanned aerial devices), has been proven useful

(Jiménez and Mulero-Pázmány, 2019), among others for:

- Ecosystem monitoring: assessment of conservation actions, selection of sites for the

reintroduction of species, habitat assessment, mapping and quantification of ecosystem

services, validation of vegetation maps.

- Wildlife research and management: wildlife surveys, insect monitoring, habitat

modelling, identification of suitable sites for reintroduction programmes


Page 7

- Law enforcement: can be used for controlling protected areas.

- Environmental management: monitoring environmental impacts and disasters, such as

wildfires, oil spills, invasive alien species, erosion or habitat degradation. They can be

used for sampling water, soil and air.

Although drones have been recognised for their great potential for nature conservation,

their use remains under-developed.

Environmental DNA (eDNA)

Traditional biodiversity monitoring is limited by a lack of resources and biases in data

collected, especially in those species with low detection rates or when capturing a huge

diversity of organisms. The use of molecular techniques for detecting DNA is widely

recognised for species detection (Ishige et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2018), including for those

difficult to survey, such as cryptic, rare or invasive alien species in their first invasive stages

(Bakker et al, 2017; Devloo et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2018).

eDNA is an emerging technology, rapidly developing, with significant advances towards new

applications, for example monitoring abundances (Levi et al 2018), populations (Wheat et

al.; 2016) or ecological quality (Pawlowski et al., 2018; Vasselon et al., 2017).

Citizen science

Citizen science has been described as the non-professional involvement of volunteers in the

scientific process, whether in the data collection phase or in other phases of the research

(Bio Innovation Service 2018).

The growing number of citizen science projects, most of them in relation to biodiversity and

nature science, is generating millions of observations throughout the EU. Many of these

projects have proven to be a relevant and strategic tool for nature conservation, for example

in relation to monitoring species distribution (e.g. birds, butterflies, invasive alien species),

climate change, biodiversity richness or even reporting on Natura 2000 sites.

The further development of specific websites, data bases and apps for smartphones will

encourage, even more, the potential of citizen science in the coming years.


Page 8

3. Results of interactive sessions

How can Nature Conservation and Natura 2000 management best benefit from the newest insights and development of remote sensing and drone techniques?

Which remote sensing products have added value for Natura 2000 monitoring?

The purpose, the frequency of observation and the accessibility of the terrain defines

the added value of remote sensing.

Drones are in particular useful for animal counts. They are versatile, flexible, fast and

with low emissions.

All remote sensing have the benefit that they give no disturbance, except perhaps

some low level flying drones.

Is there a scale range of remote sensing products which is not well covered, currently?

At site level it is insufficient (e.g. at plant species level, or rare species mapping). Also

for habitat modelling the products are currently not good enough.

Estuaries are difficult, the scale is limiting, but multi-scale analysis of various products

is promising.

The large scale is well covered.

What habitats are most suitable for monitoring with remote sensing?

It depends on the purpose (e.g. for mapping threats or habitat types).

In general, large scale and dynamic habitats are better suitable for mapping.

It is suitable for habitats in Favourable Conservation Status, dry types, wet types, and

habitats with clear dominant species.

What are the most promising remote sensing products for Natura 2000 monitoring: now and

in the future?

Now:

Google Maps, Bing Maps.

Ortho-photos, stereo-photos, LIDAR products (DTM, DSM, CHM), forest cover, Radar

data, Corine Land Cover, Copernicus HR products.

Tracking devices, camera traps, ground radar for bird detection.


Page 9

In the future:

High resolution LIDAR products.

Remote sensing measuring all abiotic site conditions (e.g. soil moisture, temperature,

trophic levels, salinity).

Complete integration of remote sensing products with insitu data (e.g. vegetation

releves, species presence).

Integrated camera systems (e.g. LIDAR and hyperspectral).

Copernicus products linked to ecosystem and climate services.

Toolboxes & apps with free available high resolution remote sensing products and

really easy accessible.

Which are the problems in remote sensing products for monitoring?

They are complex to use:

o The data need to be interpreted, because they have been designed for other

uses, not for ecology. A model has to be developed for data analysis.

o Consequently, there is a lack of standardisation.

o Because all the above, it is difficult to find specific training on them.

A lot of people is still reluctant to use them (scepticism about technological

innovation), slowing down their take–up for nature conservation management,

which are mainly relegated to scientific purposes.

Lack of understanding on their utility, that often leads to an over expectation of their

results.

Suitable remote sensing techniques for monitoring land use or land cover change and (impact

of) other pressures

Change detection techniques are more suitable than sequential image classification.

Fuzzy techniques to improve accuracy.

Aerial photographs and satellites as well images from drones.

Other pressures that can be monitored by means of remote sensing techniques:

Land fragmentation

Nitrogen pollution

Invasive species

Water conditions / desiccation / flooding

Grazing


Page 10

Burning

Diseases like pests

Productivity

Recreation

Human activities around site (e.g. construction of piers)

Do you know remote sensing products cheaper than field visits / Most cost-effective remote

sensing techniques for monitoring of Natura 2000?

It is still not quite clear if remote sensing techniques are cheaper, it depends on the

context. Many times still needs to be combined with field visits.

It might not always be cheaper, but can provide an added value. It can be a way to

answer a certain question or fill a gap in data (e.g. 12 year frequency of vegetation

mapping, what about in between?), it is also very good for early evidence and alert

system for any habitat type.

Many of the costs are not in acquiring data but in getting your set-up in place:

storage and processing (i.e. information technologies infrastructure in place),

interpretation and calibration (i.e. getting the right knowledge and expertise).

The most cost effective techniques include the use of data sets

(Copernicus/Landsat/Sentinel/Planet) from different years and detect changes. The

combination of different remote sensing techniques (e.g. satellite with LIDAR) gives

even more useful information.

Linking networks of sensors (e.g. soil, water, etc) and combining with satellite data

gives numerous possibilities.

What are barriers for site managers to (not) use remote sensingproducts?

Lack of knowledge on remote sensing tools. They are too complex and not easy to

understand.

They produce a huge amount of data that are not easily analysed and interpreted.

Lack of recognition of remote sensing advantages and usefulness.

Fear for the unknowns still is a large barrier.

Results are not transferable across sites.

What remote sensing products at which scales are useful for site managers?

Scale and accuracy is contextdependant.


Page 11

The most usefulproductsfor site managers are aerial photographs and best quality

land cover applications, both are easy to use and understand.

Which actions should be taken, and by whom, to get the new technologies applied in monitoring Natura 2000 on an EU scale and in a (more) consistent way?

European Commission

Validation and standardization

Setting of common standards for remote sensing monitoring methodologies.

Intercalibration of programs at EU level for validating methodologies.

Knowledge and Guidance

Dissemination of best-practices and key scientific publications.

Develop habitat and species repositories.

Capacity building

Together with relevant platforms (e.g. Copernicus, climate services), organise online

training courses aimed for ecologists on how to use their resources and other existing

free resources.

Promotion

Pilot projects on the use of remote sensing for monitoring Natura 2000.

Make remote sensing the standard methodology for reporting under Article 17 of the

Habitats Directive requirements, for those habitats and species for which the

methodology is cost-effective

Support remote sensing at EU level.

Integrated projects, to promote synergies and cooperation among the different

stakeholders: countries, institutions, business, research institutions, site managers,

etc.

Funding

Funding to develop new monitoring technologies for Natura 2000. One example here

is the EU COST action DNAqua-net “developing new genetic tools for bio-assessment

of aquatic ecosystems in Europe” http://dnaqua.net/.

http://dnaqua.net/


Page 12

Member States

Setting needs

Formulate Natura 2000 monitoring needs.


Contribute on the setting of common standards for remote sensing monitoring

methodologies.

Cooperation

Find a common ground by asking countries/managers to collaborate over specific

topics.

Knowledge and guidance

Develop habitat and species repositories.

Create knowledge infrastructures.

Feed the European Commission with best practices and pilot projects.

Field manual for the use of remote sensing for monitoring Natura 2000 (habitat

description, identification of habitats, remote sensing analysis).

Capacity building

Develop appropriate knowledge and skills on the use of new technologies for

monitoring Natura 2000.

Promotion

Lead the implementation of remote sensing projects.

Funding

Promote funding for developing and stimulating using remote sensing techniques.

Promote demonstrating projects on the application of remote sensing for monitoring

Natura 2000.

Support citizen science.

Scientific community

Setting needs

Be more application oriented, work with site managers to understand end users

needs.


Page 13

Improve communication between scientific community and site managers.


Contribute on the setting common standards and validate methodologies together

with site managers.

User friendly

Make accessible the best technology.

Make the outcome more understandable for site managers.

Capacity building

Contribute to the education of stakeholders and managers.

Site managers

Setting needs

Formulate Natura 2000 daily management and monitoring needs.

Explain needs to researchers.


Feed-back from the research community to validate products.

Open mind

To embrace the future, open mind to new technologies.

EUROSITE

Capacity building

Create a working group to help in sharing knowledge, lobbing to EC, training,

acceptance of remote sensing among site managers.

Set up and support technical groups (e.g.: drones, DNA, citizen science).

Connecting everyone.

Promotion

Influence EC funding instruments to include specific programmes to develop remote

sensing and other new technologies for the monitoring of Natura 2000, bringing

together the ideas of site managers and scientific community.


Page 14

Help the European Commission in promoting the use of remote sensing for Natura

2000.

Others

EEA-Copernicus: provide a framework and funding for Member States to apply

harmonised remote sensing methods for Natura 2000 monitoring.

Citizen science projects should leverage remote sensing products.

Private companies: share biological data.


Page 15

4. Contribution to the Mediterranean Road Map

This networking event has contributed to the development of Mediterranean road map, set up in Cyprus, in the following topic:

Workshop: The roles of new

technologies and citizen science

Med

iter

ran

ean

Ro

ad M

ap

Workshop citizen science & early warning systems

X


Page 16

5. References

Bakker, J.; Wagensteen, O.S.; Chapman, D.D.; Boussarie, G.; Buddo, D.; Guttridge, T.L.; Hertler, H.; Mouillot, D.; Vigliola, L.; Mariani, S. 2017. Shark diversity in contrasting levels of anthropogenic impact. Scientific Reports 7(1). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17150-2

Bio Innovation Service (2018) Citizen science for environmental policy: development of an EU-wide inventory and analysis of selected practices. Final report for the European Commission, DG Environment under the contract 070203/2017/768879/ETU/ENV.A.3, in collaboration with Fundacion Ibercivis and The Natural History Museum, November 2018.

Cristescu, M.E.; Hebert, P-D.N. 2018. Uses and misuses for environmental DNA in biodiversity science and conservation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 49: 209-230

Devloo-Delva, F.; Miralles, L.; Ardura, A.; J.Borrel, Y.; Pejovic, I.; Tsartsianidou, V.; García-Vázquez, E. 2016. Detection and characterisation of the biopollutant Xenostrobus secures (Lamark, 1819) Asturias population from DNA Barcoding and eBarcoding. Marine Pollution Bulleting 105: 23-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.008

Diaz-Delgado, R.; Lucas, R.; Hurford, C. 2017. The roles of remote sensing in nature conservation. A practical guide and case studies. Springer

DNAqua-net: Developing new genetic tools for bioassessment of aquatic ecosystems in Europe

García, D. & Múgica, M. 2017. Second Mediterranean Natura 2000 Seminar. Limassol – Cyprus, 14-16 November 2017.

Jiménez López, J.; Mulero-Pázmány, M. 2019. Drones for conservation in protected areas: present and future. Drones 2019, 3, 10; doi:10.3390/drones3010010

Levi, T.; Allen, J.M.; Bell, D.; Joyce, J.; Russell, J.R.; Tallmon, D.A.; Vulstek, S.C.; Yang, C.; Yu, D.W. 2018. Environmental DNA for the enumeration and management of pacific salmon. Molecular ecology resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12987

Lin, M.; Zhang, S.; Yao, M. 2019. Effective detection of environmental DNA from the invasive American bullfrog. Biological Invasions 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-01974-2

Pawlowski, J., Kelly-Quinn, M., Altermatt, F., Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil, L., Beja, P., Boggero, A., Borja, A., Bouchez, A., Cordier, T., Domaizon, I., Feio, M.J., Filipe, A.F., Fornaroli, R., Graf, W., Herder, J., van der Hoorn, B., Iwan Jones, J., Sagova-Mareckova, M., Moritz, C., Barquín, J., Piggott, J.J., Pinna, M., Rimet, F., Rinkevich, B., Sousa-Santos, C., Specchia, V., Trobajo, R., Vasselon, V., Vitecek, S., Zimmerman, J., Weigand, A., Leese, F., Kahlert, M., 2018. The future of biotic indices in the ecogenomic era: Integrating (e)DNA metabarcoding in biological assessment of aquatic ecosystems. Science of The Total Environment 637–638, 1295–1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.002

Tang, C.Q., Crampton-Platt, A., Townend, S., Bruce, K., Bista, I. &Creer, S. 2018. Development of DNA applications in Natural England 2016/2017. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 252.

Vandenborre J., Paelinckx D., Mücher C.A., Kooistra L., Haest B., De Blust G. & 17 Schmidt A.M. (2011). Integrating remote sensing in Natura 2000 habitat 18 monitoring: Prospects on the way forward. Journal for Nature Conservation 19 19 (2): 116-125. (DOI:10.1016/j.jnc.2010.07.003)

Vandenborre J., Spanhove T., Haest B. (2017). Towards a mature age of remote sensing for Natura 2000 habitat conservation: Poor method transferability as a prime obstacle. In: Díaz Delgado R., Lucas R., Hurford C. (Eds). The roles of remote sensing in nature conservation: A practical guide and case studies. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 11-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64332-8_2

Vasselon V., Rimet F., Tapolczai K., Bouchez A. (2017) Assessing ecological status with diatom DNA metabarcoding: scaling-up on a WFD monitoring network (Mayotte island, France). Ecological Indicators 82:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.024

Wheat, R.E.; Allen, J.M.; Miller, S.D.L.; Wilmers, C.C.; Levi, T. 2016. Environmental DNA from residual saliva for efficient non invasive genetic monitoring of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos). PLoS ONE 11/11): e0165259.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165259

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.008

http://dnaqua.net/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/second-mediterranean-natura-2000-seminar/2nd_Mediterranean_Seminar_draft_report.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/second-mediterranean-natura-2000-seminar/2nd_Mediterranean_Seminar_draft_report.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12987

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-01974-2

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.002

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-Natural-Englands-DNA-based-methods-for-survey-and-monitoring

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-Natural-Englands-DNA-based-methods-for-survey-and-monitoring

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64332-8_2

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.024


Page 17

Annex I. Interactive sessions methodology

Interactive session 1

How can Nature Conservation and Natura 2000 management best benefit from the newest

insights and development of remote sensing and drone techniques’?

Tuesday 9 April: 17.10-18.00

A World Café/Carousel method was used in order to address questions related to the

overarching question ‘How can Nature Conservation and Natura 2000 management best

benefit from the newest insights and development of remote sensing and drone

techniques’?

Six stations were established, consisting of a stand with a flip-chart with one or more

questions to be answered by the participants.

The participants at the Workshop were split on to six groups, which had to pass through

each station to answer the 1-2 questions. For the first station they had 15 minutes, changing

after to the next stations, in were they only had 10 minutes. After the first station the group

reviewed the answers from the previous group, and add/contribute to it without changing

the answers, but they could built further on them, or add remarks. At the last station they

had to summarize/formulate the conclusions based on the answers at the flip chart.

At each stand there was a facilitator, explaining or summarizing the remarks of the previous

groups.

- A. Theo van der Sluis (Biogeographical Process, WENR)

- B. Kristijan Čivić (Eurosite)

- C. Carlos Sunyer (Biogeographical Process, Terra Ecogest)

- D. Sander Mücher (Wageningen Environmental Research)

- E. Anne Schmidt (Biogeographical Process, WENR)

- F. Ellen Meulman (BIJ12)

Some of the questions were formulated in advance to the Workshop while others were

raised after the discussions during the Workshop. With this methodology each group of

participants has an opportunity to contribute to each question and the results were

summarized onto three “key findings”, which were feed back to the plenary on Wednesday.


Page 18

Questions rose to the participants

Stand A



Question 3: What habitats are most suitable for monitoring with remote sensing?

Stand B


in the future?

Stand C


Stand D

Suitable remote sensing techniques for monitoring land use or land cover change and

(impact of) other pressures

Stand E



Stand F

What are barriers for site managers to (not) use remote sensing products?


Interactive session 2

How can Nature Conservation and Natura 2000 management best benefit from the newest

insights and development of remote sensing and drone techniques’?

Wednesday 10 April: 17.10-18.00

The audience was separated onto small groups of 4-5 persons, all of which had to propose

actions for the European Commission, Member States, site managers, researchers and

Eurosite. They had 15 minutes to propose an unlimited number of actions for each group,

which were post-it in a flip-chart under each institution. The results were feed back to the

plenary by:


Page 19

- Theo van der Sluis (Biogeographical Process, WENR)

- Anne Schmidt (Biogeographical Process, WENR)

- Kristijan Čivić (Eurosite)


Page 20

Annex II. Full answers to Interactive session 1


The Accessibility of the terrain defines the added value of remote sensing. Also the

purpose, e.g. for monitoring trends, or the frequency of observation.

Drones are in particular useful for animal counts, e.g. deer. They are versatile,

flexible, fast and with low emissions.

All remote sensing have the benefit that they give no disturbance, except perhaps

some low level flying drones.


At site level it is insufficient, e.g. at plant species level, or rare species mapping. Also

for the purpose of habitat modelling the products are currently not good enough.

Estuaries are difficult, the scale is limiting, but multi-scale analysis of various products

is promising.

The large scale is well covered (perhaps it is insufficient for HR-LIDAR).

What habitats are most suitable for monitoring with remote sensing?

It depends on the purpose. E.g. for mapping threats or habitat types.

In general, large scale and dynamic habitats are better suitable for mapping.

Habitats in Favourable Conservation Status, dry types, wet types, and habitats with

clear dominant species (e.g. Molinia) are suitable.

Remote sensing can help to pinpoint areas where management interventions are

required, or those where no interventions are necessary.

Some remark is made that we should map all the terrain, in and outside the Natura

2000 network, for threats. In Spain some 60% of all habitats is covered, which is 90%

of the country.

Some groups state that semi natural habitats are difficult, although Poland states it is

possible (they only have semi-natural grasslands), but the quality of those habitats is

tricky. For that aerial photographs may be better.

In the Netherlands the mapping of habitat types is difficult since they are too

detailed.


in the future?


Page 21

Now:

Google Maps, Bing Maps.

Ortho-photos, stereo-photos, LIDAR products (DTM, DSM, CHM), forest cover, Radar

data (e.g. subsidence), Corine Land Cover, Copernicus HR products.

Tracking devices, camera traps, ground radar for bird detection.

Essential biodiversity variables, such as: leaf area index, vegetation height, biomass,

phenology, flooding, land cover, soil moisture, etc.

Vegetation structure and vegetation cover monitoring.

Remote sensing products can fill gaps intermediate in a frequency, e.g. vegetation

mapping each 12 years, intermediate products derived from remote sensing.

Good ecologists with remote sensing knowledge.

In the future:

Remote sensing can map all Annex I habitat types (Habitats Directive).

Habitat maps every 6 years from remote sensing (with 10m resolution) for reporting

under the requirements of Art. 17 of the Habitats Directive.

Increase frequency.

Species mapping with drones.

Remote sensing measures all abiotic site conditions (soil moisture, temperature,

trophic levels, salinity).

Non-disturbing drones.

Complete integration of remote sensing products with in-situ data (e.g. vegetation

releves, species presence).

High resolution LIDAR products everywhere concerning individual trees, height and

diameter trees, and dead wood.

Integrated camera systems (e.g. LIDAR and hyperspectral).

Pocket drones with integrated camera systems that can do instantaneous habitat

mapping. Integrated camera systems.

‘Everybody’ has its own drone.

Toolboxes & apps with free available high resolution remote sensing products (e.g.

temperature, flooding, soil moisture, vegetation structure, land cover, etc.). And

really easy accessible such as Google Maps.

Remote sensing derived alert services.

Good and light batteries for drones.


Page 22

Remote sensing products and models integrated for future predictions.

Copernicus products linked to ecosystem and climate services.

All remote sensing products (everything) available in Google Maps.

Everything free and easy accessible, and all in one projection.

All remote sensing products downloadable for own processing further.

More accurate methods.


Most remote sensing data is not specific for ecologist.

Access to data is no always easy and cheap.

For certain species there is not enough resolution.

Absence of tools for an easy interpretation and processing data.

There is a knowledge gap between information technologies developers and

ecologists / site managers.

There is a lack of training on remote sensing tools.

Lack of standardisation tools and methodologies.

In some countries aviation rules do not allow the use of drones.

Absence of long term validation.

Site managers are reluctant to change and accept remote sensing.

Lack of information and technical capacity among site managers.

Over expectations of results.

Understanding spatial / temporal uncertainty.

Difficult access to training.

Limited life of products.

Suitable remote sensing techniques for monitoring land use or land cover change and (impact

of) other pressures.

Remote sensing techniques

Change detection techniques are more suitable than sequential image classification

Fuzzy techniques to improve accuracy

Aerial photographs and satellites as well images from drones

Other type pressures that can be monitored by means of remote sensing techniques:

Land fragmentation


Page 23

Nitrogen pollution

Invasive species

Water conditions / desiccation / flooding

Grazing

Burning

Diseases like pesticide’s

Productivity

Recreation

Human activities around site (e.g. construction of piers).

Time scale

Difference between gradual changes and abrupt changes like pests.

Spatial scale

Important on different scale levels from site level to landscape to Member States to

European Union level.

Multiscale approach.

On site level drones important for management actions e.g. in low accessible areas.

Limitations

Resolution of satellites is limiting factor.

Aerial photographs used in e.g. Sweden.

Archives important.

Ancillary data

Cadastral data.

Agricultural data e.g. parcels and subsidies.

Historical context

It is important to have the historical context e.g. based on old aerial photographs.



Some considerations:

Remote sensing still needs to be combined with the field visits – but remote sensing

can provide an added value.

It is still not quite clear if remote sensing techniques are cheaper.


Page 24

A lot of the costs are not in acquiring data but in getting your set-up in place: storage

and processing (i.e. the information technologies infrastructure in place),

interpretation and calibration (i.e. getting the right knowledge and expertise).

Remote sensing is a very good for early evidence and alert system to indicate large

changes for any habitat type in Europe – but to get the real causes you need to

follow up with field visits.

How: use different Copernicus/Landsat/Sentinel (and/or Planet) data sets from

different years and detect changes.

Combination of different remote sensing techniques (e.g. satellite with LIDAR) gives

even more useful information.

Remote sensing might not always be cheaper, but it can be a way to answer a certain

question or fill a gap in data (e.g. 12 year frequency of vegetation mapping, what

about in between?). It depends on the specific question and context.

Some examples:

Use of tablets in the recent years has revolutionized the field work of site managers

in the recent years (email, photo, GPS, GIS, forms, mapping etc).

LIDAR is an effective way to estimate the biomass on a large scale in forestry (in use

in Finland).

Photo-traps for identifying insects (involves machine learning) used in the

Netherlands.

eDNA sampling for fish and insect surveys.

Combination of eDNA and satellite data (with involvement of some machine learning)

can be used for mapping (estimating) the distribution of various species.

Linking networks of all kind of sensors (e.g. soil, water etc.) and combining with

satellite data gives numerous possibilities.

Breeding birds’ colonies counting with drones or planes.

Satellite data for an Early Warning System for wildfire detection and monitoring.

What are barriers for site managers to (not) use remote sensing products?

There is a huge difference in what can be done versus what is needed by site

managers.

Too complex, not easy to understand (age barrier/knowledge barrier; complex to

know what method to use for what / costs).

Fear for the unknown/ what it means in terms of jobs.

Necessity of (working with and buying) new (complex) software and hardware.


Page 25

Huge amounts of data that are not easily interpreted/ analyzed/ recognized as visible

patterns/classifications.

Lack of engaging site managers in using remote sensing so that site managers don't

recognize the advantages/ usefulness.

Definition of remote sensing is not clear (includes also eDNA, wild cameras, etc.?)

Usefulness of remote sensing differs among site managers versus researchers and

conservation purposes.

Whether or not remote sensing is cost effective (money well spent)?

Fear for accessibility of data – (mis)used / misinterpreted – Fear for being controlled

/ checked upon (data protection and ownership might be an issue).

Liability in using remote sensing products like drones.

Not useful for small sites – field observations easier.

Often not transferable from one site to other.

Lack of recognition and being ok with limitations.

Simplified communication of results is necessary! Whereas effects of actions requires

detailed information.


Scale (spatial and temporal) and accuracy is context (and process) dependant.

They are useful for:

See earlier on effects of change.

Transferring knowledge across sites.

Comparing sites.

Seeing effect of influences in surrounding areas on own site.

Animal census (larger animals, birds, marine mammals).

Useful remote sensing products:

Aerial photography (watch out – can be degraded quality because of autocorrection

and compression).

Stereo photography (more historical data, good for habitats and structure for which

you then don't need LIDAR.

dat/em summit software.

Drones – small scale (more useful for own site).

Landcover application (easy to use and understand, not directly related to own site –

no fear of control).


Page 26

Annex III. Pictures

Entrance to the venue.

Opening of the Conference.


Page 27

Theo Vander Sluis presenting the Biogeographical Process.

Knowledge market.


Page 28

Field excursion to Doñana National Park.

Documents

THE ROLES OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND CITIZEN SCIENCE IN ...€¦ · Support for the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process - ENV.D.3/SER/2017/0010 - The roles of new technologies and citizen