Click here to sign in with or
Forget Password?
Learn more
share this!
30
Twit
Share
Email
July 13, 2023
This article has been reviewed according to Science X’s editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content’s credibility:
fact-checked
trusted source
proofread
by University of Chicago
Remote sensing methods are transformative tools used to study deforestation, but they are by no means perfect. In the new paper “Remotely Incorrect? Accounting for Nonclassical Measurement Error in Satellite Data on Deforestation,” published in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, authors Jennifer Alix-Garcia and Daniel L. Millimet discuss how errors in remote sensing deforestation data occur, the implications these errors may have for research using remotely sensed data, and how to account for the errors.
Deforestation presents critical ecological challenges, including habitat loss and mass extinction. To study and understand global land use, and the threats posed by diminishing forest cover, many researchers and stakeholders have turned to remote sensing data, assisted by the more than 2,000 satellites now orbiting Earth.
While these remote sensing methods provide advantages, such as the ability to cover the whole globe, “errors in remotely sensed measurements are likely present,” write “Remotely Incorrect” authors Alix-Garcia and Millimet. These errors can occur at many points in the process required to obtain usable data. For instance, the satellite-based optical sensors used to measure reflected energy have inherent technical limitations. Image pre-processing errors can arise from the correction of distorted natural features, and errors can also exist in the algorithms that ultimately translate reflectancies into usable numerical data.
To demonstrate examples of these misclassifications, the authors use two different sources of remote sensing data on forest cover in Mexico. The two sources capture the same location at a similar time, but the resulting data are derived from different pre-processing techniques. Differences between the two sources in the measurement of forest presence depend on the presence of extreme topographical attributes, like slope and elevation, as well as with sensor attributes.
With these findings, the authors suggest potential alternate estimators that can correct for such misclassifications. They apply their estimators to evaluate a different scenario in Mexico: a payment for ecosystem services (PES) program that compensates landowners for maintaining intact forest cover on their property, with monitoring done in part by remote sensing. Using data gathered between 2003 and 2015, the authors find that PES significantly slows the process of deforestation once misclassification is addressed.
In conclusion, the authors write that “researchers must engage in conversations across disciplinary boundaries to understand the construction of the data, and avoid the usage of naïve statistical models that fail to account for the nonclassical measurement error” in order to fully harness the potential of remotely sensed data on deforestation. Ultimately, “[r]esearchers ought to engage with remote sensing scientists to understand how the data are constructed and the nature of its limitations.”
The findings are published in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
More information: Jennifer Alix-Garcia et al, Remotely Incorrect? Accounting for Nonclassical Measurement Error in Satellite Data on Deforestation, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (2022). DOI: 10.1086/723723
Provided by University of Chicago
More information: Jennifer Alix-Garcia et al, Remotely Incorrect? Accounting for Nonclassical Measurement Error in Satellite Data on Deforestation, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (2022). DOI: 10.1086/723723
Provided by University of Chicago
Explore further
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Feedback to editors
7 minutes ago
0
2 hours ago
0
23 hours ago
0
Nov 25, 2023
0
Nov 25, 2023
2
7 minutes ago
2 hours ago
23 hours ago
Nov 25, 2023
Nov 25, 2023
Nov 25, 2023
Nov 25, 2023
Nov 24, 2023
Nov 24, 2023
Nov 24, 2023
Nov 22, 2023
Nov 22, 2023
Nov 21, 2023
Nov 21, 2023
Nov 21, 2023
Nov 15, 2023
More from Earth Sciences
May 14, 2021
Feb 6, 2023
Sep 9, 2022
May 18, 2023
Jan 23, 2023
Feb 22, 2023
2 hours ago
Nov 24, 2023
Nov 24, 2023
Nov 24, 2023
Nov 23, 2023
Nov 23, 2023
Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form. For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines).
Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request
Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.
Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.
Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient’s address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.
Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we’ll never share your details to third parties.
More information Privacy policy
We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X’s mission by getting a premium account.
Medical research advances and health news
The latest engineering, electronics and technology advances
The most comprehensive sci-tech news coverage on the web