Reimagining the potential of Earth observations for ecosystem service assessments

Carlos Ramirez-Reyes; Kate A Brauman; Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer; Gillian L Galford; Susana B Adamo; Christopher B Anderson; Clarissa Anderson; Ginger R H Allington; Kenneth J Bagstad; Michael T Coe; Anna F Cord; Laura E Dee; Rachelle K Gould; Meha Jain; Virginia A Kowal; Frank E Muller-Karger; Jessica Norriss; Peter Potapov; Jiangxiao Qiu; Jesse T Rieb; Brian E Robinson; Leah H Samberg; Nagendra Singh; Sabrina H Szeto; Brian Voigt; Keri Watson; T Maxwell Wright

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.150

Reimagining the potential of Earth observations for ecosystem service assessments

Sci Total Environ. 2019 May 15:665:1053-1063. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.150. Epub 2019 Feb 12.

Authors

Carlos Ramirez-Reyes¹, Kate A Brauman², Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer³, Gillian L Galford⁴, Susana B Adamo⁵, Christopher B Anderson⁶, Clarissa Anderson⁷, Ginger R H Allington⁸, Kenneth J Bagstad⁹, Michael T Coe¹⁰, Anna F Cord¹¹, Laura E Dee¹², Rachelle K Gould¹³, Meha Jain¹⁴, Virginia A Kowal¹⁵, Frank E Muller-Karger¹⁶, Jessica Norriss¹⁷, Peter Potapov¹⁸, Jiangxiao Qiu¹⁹, Jesse T Rieb²⁰, Brian E Robinson²¹, Leah H Samberg²², Nagendra Singh²³, Sabrina H Szeto²⁴, Brian Voigt²⁵, Keri Watson²⁶, T Maxwell Wright²⁷

Affiliations

¹ Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, 325 Learning & Environmental Sciences, 1954 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. Electronic address: cramirez@umn.edu.
² Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, 325 Learning & Environmental Sciences, 1954 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. Electronic address: kbrauman@umn.edu.
³ Natural Capital Project, Stanford University Woods Institute for the Environment, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: bchaplin@stanford.edu.
⁴ Gund Institute for Environment and Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, VT 05405, USA. Electronic address: Gillian.Galford@uvm.edu.
⁵ Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), The Earth Institute, Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA. Electronic address: sadamo@ciesin.columbia.edu.
⁶ Stanford University, Department of Biology, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: cbanders@stanford.edu.
⁷ Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 8880 Biological Grade, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. Electronic address: clrander@ucsd.edu.
⁸ Department of Geography, The George Washington University, 2121 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA. Electronic address: gallington@gwu.edu.
⁹ U.S. Geological Survey, Geosciences & Environmental Change Science Center, P.O. Box 25046, DFC, MS 980, Denver, CO 80225, USA. Electronic address: kjbagstad@usgs.gov.
¹⁰ The Woods Hole Research Center, 149 Woods Hole Rd, Falmouth, MA 02540, USA. Electronic address: mtcoe@whrc.org.
¹¹ UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany. Electronic address: anna.cord@ufz.de.
¹² Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 2003 Upper Buford Circle St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. Electronic address: ledee@umn.edu.
¹³ Environmental Program and Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 81 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA. Electronic address: rgould@uvm.edu.
¹⁴ School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. Electronic address: mehajain@umich.edu.
¹⁵ Natural Capital Project, Stanford University Woods Institute for the Environment, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: gkowal@stanford.edu.
¹⁶ College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701, USA. Electronic address: carib@usf.edu.
¹⁷ Upstream Tech, 2401 Monarch St # 23, Alameda, CA 94501, USA. Electronic address: jessie@upstream.tech.
¹⁸ University of Maryland, 4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 400, College Park, MD 20740, USA. Electronic address: potapov@umd.edu.
¹⁹ University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, 3205 College Ave, Davie, FL 33314, USA. Electronic address: qiuj@ufl.edu.
²⁰ Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9, Canada. Electronic address: jesse.rieb@mail.mcgill.ca.
²¹ Department of Geography, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H3A 0B9, Canada. Electronic address: brian.e.robinson@mcgill.ca.
²² Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, 325 Learning & Environmental Sciences, 1954 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA; Rainforest Alliance, 233 Broadway, New York, NY, 10279, USA. Electronic address: lsamberg@ra.org.
²³ National Security Emerging Technologies Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, MS6017, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6017, USA. Electronic address: singhn@ornl.gov.
²⁴ Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect St, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Electronic address: sabrina.szeto@yale.edu.
²⁵ Gund Institute for Environment and Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, VT 05405, USA. Electronic address: brian.voigt@uvm.edu.
²⁶ Sewanee, University of the South, 735 University Avenue, Sewanee, TN 37383, USA. Electronic address: klwatson@sewanee.edu.
²⁷ Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA. Electronic address: twright@conservation.org.

PMID: 30893737
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.150

Abstract

The benefits nature provides to people, called ecosystem services, are increasingly recognized and accounted for in assessments of infrastructure development, agricultural management, conservation prioritization, and sustainable sourcing. These assessments are often limited by data, however, a gap with tremendous potential to be filled through Earth observations (EO), which produce a variety of data across spatial and temporal extents and resolutions. Despite widespread recognition of this potential, in practice few ecosystem service studies use EO. Here, we identify challenges and opportunities to using EO in ecosystem service modeling and assessment. Some challenges are technical, related to data awareness, processing, and access. These challenges require systematic investment in model platforms and data management. Other challenges are more conceptual but still systemic; they are byproducts of the structure of existing ecosystem service models and addressing them requires scientific investment in solutions and tools applicable to a wide range of models and approaches. We also highlight new ways in which EO can be leveraged for ecosystem service assessments, identifying promising new areas of research. More widespread use of EO for ecosystem service assessment will only be achieved if all of these types of challenges are addressed. This will require non-traditional funding and partnering opportunities from private and public agencies to promote data exploration, sharing, and archiving. Investing in this integration will be reflected in better and more accurate ecosystem service assessments worldwide.

Keywords: Ecosystem benefits; Monitoring; Remote sensing; Research priorities.

Publication types

Review