techniques (e.g., Salafsky and Margoluis 1999) were used in Fiji by NGOs
(Wildlife Conservation Society, WWF, Wetlands International-Oceania) to identify the simplified conceptual model of threats to coral reefs shown in Fig. 15.1.
Once the conceptual model was delineated, the NGOs could easily identify where
remote sensing tools and products could be of assistance to help local communities
protect coral reef biodiversity and reduce declines of reef resources. Remote
sensing data were accordingly used by these groups in Fiji to: help identify critical
watersheds for management to maintain ecosystem linkages between catchment
and reef (Jenkins et al. 2010); identify alternate configurations for marine protected area networks that minimize costs to fishers (Adams et al. 2011); and predict
the spatial distribution of reef fish biomass and diversity for management of
fisheries resources (Knudby et al. 2011).
Once the research or management question is clearly identified, the choice of
whether to use remote sensing data, and which remote sensing platform and/or
products are most appropriate, will depend on attributes of the environment to be
mapped and the capacity of the mapping organization (Phinn 1998). This includes
items such as:
• The scale of the research or management area;
• The environmental conditions in the area to be mapped;
• The minimum size of features of interest;
• The minimum measurement precision and accuracy required;
• Temporal requirements for assessing change; and
• The organizational capacity to process new data or use existing data products
(Phinn et al. 2010).
Table 15.1 and Fig. 15.2 modify the approaches of Phinn (1998) and Phinn
et al. (2000) for identifying considerations to be taken into account when selecting
image data and processing approaches to deliver maps of key biophysical properties of coral reefs.
15.2.2 User Versus Producer Needs
While many coral reef remote sensing scientists direct their research towards
improving products for management applications, there is still some sentiment that
coral reef remote sensing work has been too experimental and small in scale to be
applied to broad (100–1,000 s of km) management units covering areas across a
high diversity of geomorphic zones and benthic communities (Hopley et al. 2007).
Andréfouët (2008) notes that this problem of scale has largely arisen due to
divergence between the needs of reef map producers versus reef map users. Scientific map producers who focus on publication in scientific journals are obliged to
come up with new and original mapping tools whose robustness are often tested
over small areas with high volumes of field data acquired at great cost (Andréfouët
2008). While there is certainly a place for scientific innovation to push the field of
406
S. Jupiter et al.
(Wildlife Conservation Society, WWF, Wetlands International-Oceania) to identify the simplified conceptual model of threats to coral reefs shown in Fig. 15.1.
Once the conceptual model was delineated, the NGOs could easily identify where
remote sensing tools and products could be of assistance to help local communities
protect coral reef biodiversity and reduce declines of reef resources. Remote
sensing data were accordingly used by these groups in Fiji to: help identify critical
watersheds for management to maintain ecosystem linkages between catchment
and reef (Jenkins et al. 2010); identify alternate configurations for marine protected area networks that minimize costs to fishers (Adams et al. 2011); and predict
the spatial distribution of reef fish biomass and diversity for management of
fisheries resources (Knudby et al. 2011).
Once the research or management question is clearly identified, the choice of
whether to use remote sensing data, and which remote sensing platform and/or
products are most appropriate, will depend on attributes of the environment to be
mapped and the capacity of the mapping organization (Phinn 1998). This includes
items such as:
• The scale of the research or management area;
• The environmental conditions in the area to be mapped;
• The minimum size of features of interest;
• The minimum measurement precision and accuracy required;
• Temporal requirements for assessing change; and
• The organizational capacity to process new data or use existing data products
(Phinn et al. 2010).
Table 15.1 and Fig. 15.2 modify the approaches of Phinn (1998) and Phinn
et al. (2000) for identifying considerations to be taken into account when selecting
image data and processing approaches to deliver maps of key biophysical properties of coral reefs.
15.2.2 User Versus Producer Needs
While many coral reef remote sensing scientists direct their research towards
improving products for management applications, there is still some sentiment that
coral reef remote sensing work has been too experimental and small in scale to be
applied to broad (100–1,000 s of km) management units covering areas across a
high diversity of geomorphic zones and benthic communities (Hopley et al. 2007).
Andréfouët (2008) notes that this problem of scale has largely arisen due to
divergence between the needs of reef map producers versus reef map users. Scientific map producers who focus on publication in scientific journals are obliged to
come up with new and original mapping tools whose robustness are often tested
over small areas with high volumes of field data acquired at great cost (Andréfouët
2008). While there is certainly a place for scientific innovation to push the field of
406
S. Jupiter et al.