12
Keywords Earth observation • EU Habitats Directive • Annex I habitats • Habitat
mapping • Habitat monitoring • Conservation status • User requirements
Introduction
Remote sensing and, in particular, earth observation (i.e., the gathering of information about the earth’s surface and events on it from the air or from space; Jones and
Vaughan 2010), has been around as a tool and a science for several decades. Over the
years, technological advancements in sensors (increasing spatial and spectral resolution, active sensors), platforms (satellites, airborne, and more recently unmanned
systems), image analysis techniques (e.g., object-based image analysis; Blaschke
et al. 2014) and computer processing capacity have made the tool ever more powerful. Not surprisingly, remote sensing has repeatedly been identified as a very promising and powerful tool to aid biodiversity mapping and monitoring (e.g., Stoms and
Estes 1993; Innes and Koch 1998; Nagendra 2001; Kerr and Ostrovsky 2003; Turner
et al. 2003; Aplin 2005; Xie et al. 2008; Gross et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2010; Nagendra
et al. 2013; Corbane et al. 2015; Pettorelli et al. 2016), and many studies have set out
to develop practical applications of remote sensing to specific needs of the ecological
and conservation communities (e.g., Feilhauer et al. 2014; Franke et al. 2012; Kopeć
et al. 2016; Neumann et al. 2015; Riedler et al. 2015; Thoonen et al. 2013; Zlinszky
et al. 2014). Indeed, the use of remote sensing offers a number of distinct advantages
over field-based data collection, such as the provision of a spatially explicit and consistent view over larger areas, that is free of a priori interpretation at the time of data
collection. It also allows for easier updates, and even retrospective evaluation of
changes (when archive images are available) (Vanden Borre et al. 2011a).
Natura 2000 is a European Union-wide policy aimed at the restoration and longterm maintenance of the most typical and most threatened habitat types and species
in Europe. As part of its implementation, EU member states have selected outstanding natural areas within their territories to become part of the Natura 2000 network
(Evans 2012), and are monitoring and reporting the status of species and habitat
types on their territory in six-yearly intervals. Vanden Borre et al. (2011b) analysed
the use of remote sensing in this process and found that its application was mostly
limited to research contexts. Despite the potential advantages and continuous scientific and technological progress, the step towards operational monitoring using
remote sensing appeared to be too big a hurdle to take. It has been suggested that
ecologists have lagged behind in adopting the new technological opportunities
provided by remote sensing (Newton et al. 2009; Horning et al. 2010), and one
could easily think that this is because remote sensing requires technical skills that
are too far from general ecologists’ skills. But is that really the case? And if so, is it
the only reason? Ecologists and nature conservationists have not been particularly
slow in taking up other useful technologies when they emerged, such as GPS
and radio tracking, population genetic analysis, aerial photography and GIS,
J. Vanden Borre et al.
Keywords Earth observation • EU Habitats Directive • Annex I habitats • Habitat
mapping • Habitat monitoring • Conservation status • User requirements
Introduction
Remote sensing and, in particular, earth observation (i.e., the gathering of information about the earth’s surface and events on it from the air or from space; Jones and
Vaughan 2010), has been around as a tool and a science for several decades. Over the
years, technological advancements in sensors (increasing spatial and spectral resolution, active sensors), platforms (satellites, airborne, and more recently unmanned
systems), image analysis techniques (e.g., object-based image analysis; Blaschke
et al. 2014) and computer processing capacity have made the tool ever more powerful. Not surprisingly, remote sensing has repeatedly been identified as a very promising and powerful tool to aid biodiversity mapping and monitoring (e.g., Stoms and
Estes 1993; Innes and Koch 1998; Nagendra 2001; Kerr and Ostrovsky 2003; Turner
et al. 2003; Aplin 2005; Xie et al. 2008; Gross et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2010; Nagendra
et al. 2013; Corbane et al. 2015; Pettorelli et al. 2016), and many studies have set out
to develop practical applications of remote sensing to specific needs of the ecological
and conservation communities (e.g., Feilhauer et al. 2014; Franke et al. 2012; Kopeć
et al. 2016; Neumann et al. 2015; Riedler et al. 2015; Thoonen et al. 2013; Zlinszky
et al. 2014). Indeed, the use of remote sensing offers a number of distinct advantages
over field-based data collection, such as the provision of a spatially explicit and consistent view over larger areas, that is free of a priori interpretation at the time of data
collection. It also allows for easier updates, and even retrospective evaluation of
changes (when archive images are available) (Vanden Borre et al. 2011a).
Natura 2000 is a European Union-wide policy aimed at the restoration and longterm maintenance of the most typical and most threatened habitat types and species
in Europe. As part of its implementation, EU member states have selected outstanding natural areas within their territories to become part of the Natura 2000 network
(Evans 2012), and are monitoring and reporting the status of species and habitat
types on their territory in six-yearly intervals. Vanden Borre et al. (2011b) analysed
the use of remote sensing in this process and found that its application was mostly
limited to research contexts. Despite the potential advantages and continuous scientific and technological progress, the step towards operational monitoring using
remote sensing appeared to be too big a hurdle to take. It has been suggested that
ecologists have lagged behind in adopting the new technological opportunities
provided by remote sensing (Newton et al. 2009; Horning et al. 2010), and one
could easily think that this is because remote sensing requires technical skills that
are too far from general ecologists’ skills. But is that really the case? And if so, is it
the only reason? Ecologists and nature conservationists have not been particularly
slow in taking up other useful technologies when they emerged, such as GPS
and radio tracking, population genetic analysis, aerial photography and GIS,
J. Vanden Borre et al.