Zander S. Venter, Bálint Czúcz, Erik Stange, Megan S. Nowell, Trond Simensen, Bart Immerzeel, David N. Barton
{"title":"生态系统核算的 \"不确定性审计\":如果不进行基于设计的面积估算和精度评估,基于卫星的生态系统范围就会出现偏差","authors":"Zander S. Venter, Bálint Czúcz, Erik Stange, Megan S. Nowell, Trond Simensen, Bart Immerzeel, David N. Barton","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000056/pdfft?md5=0682e3864bc2d1689ee3748fd8cc342f&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000056-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Uncertainty audit’ for ecosystem accounting: Satellite-based ecosystem extent is biased without design-based area estimation and accuracy assessment\",\"authors\":\"Zander S. Venter, Bálint Czúcz, Erik Stange, Megan S. Nowell, Trond Simensen, Bart Immerzeel, David N. Barton\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101599\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000056/pdfft?md5=0682e3864bc2d1689ee3748fd8cc342f&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000056-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000056\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000056","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
‘Uncertainty audit’ for ecosystem accounting: Satellite-based ecosystem extent is biased without design-based area estimation and accuracy assessment
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.
期刊介绍:
Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly.
Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.