31
More Considerations for Repeatability and Transferability
Transferability is undervalued, and rarely explicitly assessed in publications (one
exception is Keramitsoglou et al. 2015). Nevertheless, we are convinced that more
consideration of, and transparency about, transferability will have beneficial effects
on the reputation of remote sensing, and eventually its uptake, in the Natura 2000
monitoring community. It will help potential users to gain an idea of what is achievable with remote sensing (avoiding unrealistic expectations). It will also help remote
sensing scientists to detect flaws and dependencies in their methods, and fix them.
Therefore, we call upon the scientific community to be more considerate towards
the transferability of remote sensing methods, by testing these themselves, or by
making it easy for others to do so, e.g., by releasing their (preferably open-source)
programming code into the public domain.
Conclusions
Remote sensing has been around as a tool for several decades, but its uptake in operational monitoring for nature conservation remains rather limited. In this paper, we
argued that poor method transferability may be a hitherto overlooked cause of that.
Until now, the complexity of biodiversity has been captured using mostly tailor- made
remote sensing approaches, which were then promoted among other members of the
nature conservation community with presumably the same requirements. However,
transfer of the approach often resulted in unsatisfactory results, leading to disappointment in the potential of remote sensing among intended users. Although poor method
transferability is not the only cause for poor uptake of remote sensing products in
nature conservation, we call upon both the remote sensing and the nature conservation communities to consider wider applicability at an early stage when new methods
are devised. Doing so might be exactly what is needed to unlock the full potential of
remote sensing for biodiversity monitoring, and induce its regular operational use.
Acknowledgments The research leading to these results received funding from the Belgian
Science Policy Office’s STEREO II–programme (HABISTAT project – contract SR/00/103), and
from the European Community’s 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no 263479 (MS.MONINA project). We thank Markus Reinhold and Sebastian Schmidtlein
for providing the Wahner Heide data, and Sam Provoost for the Westhoek data. The views expressed
in this manuscript are entirely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of their
employers or the funding sources.
Towards a Mature Age of Remote Sensing for Natura 2000 Habitat Conservation: Poor…
More Considerations for Repeatability and Transferability
Transferability is undervalued, and rarely explicitly assessed in publications (one
exception is Keramitsoglou et al. 2015). Nevertheless, we are convinced that more
consideration of, and transparency about, transferability will have beneficial effects
on the reputation of remote sensing, and eventually its uptake, in the Natura 2000
monitoring community. It will help potential users to gain an idea of what is achievable with remote sensing (avoiding unrealistic expectations). It will also help remote
sensing scientists to detect flaws and dependencies in their methods, and fix them.
Therefore, we call upon the scientific community to be more considerate towards
the transferability of remote sensing methods, by testing these themselves, or by
making it easy for others to do so, e.g., by releasing their (preferably open-source)
programming code into the public domain.
Conclusions
Remote sensing has been around as a tool for several decades, but its uptake in operational monitoring for nature conservation remains rather limited. In this paper, we
argued that poor method transferability may be a hitherto overlooked cause of that.
Until now, the complexity of biodiversity has been captured using mostly tailor- made
remote sensing approaches, which were then promoted among other members of the
nature conservation community with presumably the same requirements. However,
transfer of the approach often resulted in unsatisfactory results, leading to disappointment in the potential of remote sensing among intended users. Although poor method
transferability is not the only cause for poor uptake of remote sensing products in
nature conservation, we call upon both the remote sensing and the nature conservation communities to consider wider applicability at an early stage when new methods
are devised. Doing so might be exactly what is needed to unlock the full potential of
remote sensing for biodiversity monitoring, and induce its regular operational use.
Acknowledgments The research leading to these results received funding from the Belgian
Science Policy Office’s STEREO II–programme (HABISTAT project – contract SR/00/103), and
from the European Community’s 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no 263479 (MS.MONINA project). We thank Markus Reinhold and Sebastian Schmidtlein
for providing the Wahner Heide data, and Sam Provoost for the Westhoek data. The views expressed
in this manuscript are entirely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of their
employers or the funding sources.
Towards a Mature Age of Remote Sensing for Natura 2000 Habitat Conservation: Poor…