| Literature DB >> 23344371 |
Arun Kumar Pratihast1, Martin Herold, Valerio Avitabile, Sytze de Bruin, Harm Bartholomeus, Carlos M Souza, Lars Ribbe.
Abstract
Monitoring tropical deforestation and forest degradation is one of the central elements for the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (REDD+) scheme. Current arrangements for monitoring are based on remote sensing and field measurements. Since monitoring is the periodic process of assessing forest stands properties with respect to reference data, adopting the current REDD+ requirements for implementing monitoring at national levels is a challenging task. Recently, the advancement in Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) and mobile devices has enabled local communities to monitor their forest in a basic resource setting such as no or slow internet connection link, limited power supply, etc. Despite the potential, the use of mobile device system for community based monitoring (CBM) is still exceptional and faces implementation challenges. This paper presents an integrated data collection system based on mobile devices that streamlines the community-based forest monitoring data collection, transmission and visualization process. This paper also assesses the accuracy and reliability of CBM data and proposes a way to fit them into national REDD+ Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) scheme. The system performance is evaluated at Tra Bui commune, Quang Nam province, Central Vietnam, where forest carbon and change activities were tracked. The results show that the local community is able to provide data with accuracy comparable to expert measurements (index of agreement greater than 0.88), but against lower costs. Furthermore, the results confirm that communities are more effective to monitor small scale forest degradation due to subsistence fuel wood collection and selective logging, than high resolution remote sensing SPOT imagery.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23344371 PMCID: PMC3574662 DOI: 10.3390/s130100021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Service platform architecture for community based monitoring.
Figure 2.Class diagram of data acquisition form.
Comparison of Mobile data transmission means (adopted from [32,33]).
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| SMS | Yes | Yes | No | Low | Low |
| MMS | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low | Medium |
| Bluetooth | Yes | Yes | Yes | Medium | Free |
| 3G internet | Yes | Yes | Yes | High | Medium |
| USB cable | Yes | Yes | Yes | High | Free |
Figure 3.Some screenshots of deployed application interface to: (a) select the reason for forest disturbance; (b) record video as forest disturbance description; (c) record area for forest disturbance and (d) upload form to the database server.
Figure 4.The study area overlaid with Spot remote sensing image and community measured field plots.
Available SPOT 5 image properties.
| Green | 0.50–0.59 μm | 2.5 m |
| Red | 0.61–0.68 μm | 2.5 m |
| Near infrared | 0.78–0.89 μm | 2.5 m |
Evaluation matrix of data entry types and costs.
| Local community | Pre-secondary | 4 | 72 | 89 | 100 | 1.20 |
| Local expert | Secondary-University | 4 | 82 | 95 | 100 | 3.20 |
| National expert | University | 4 | 93 | 100 | 100 | 6.40 |
Figure 5.Simple linear correlation and error analysis statistics of the comparison between local (dependent variable y) and expert estimated (independent variable x) for: (a) Number of tree; (b) Total basal area per plot; (c) measuring time and (d) above ground biomass estimation. r is the linear correlation parameter, and IA is the index of agreement.
Figure 6.Relationship of forest disturbance area estimated by local and by SPOT remote sensing image.
Figure 7.Percentage of locally reported forest disturbance types identified through SPOT image.
Delay in capturing forest disturbance signal by SPOT image.
| Forest disturbance captured by local communities | Date | Detected on same year | Delayed detected | Not detected |
| 2007 | 16% | 48% | 36% | |
| 2008 | 33% | 53% | 14% | |
| 2009 | 33% | 47% | 20% | |
| 2010 | 65% | 20% | 15% | |