Earth Observation Applications and Global Policy Frameworks E-Book
142,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Serie: Geophysical Monograph Series
- Sprache: Englisch
Applying Earth science knowledge to sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, and climate action
Data and insights from Earth observations are critical for assessing the health of our planet, monitoring change, and addressing societal challenges from the local to the global scale.
Earth Observation Applications and Global Policy Frameworks presents case studies of Earth science information integrated with statistics and socioeconomic data for managing development targets, improving disaster resilience, and mitigating and adapting to climate change. It also showcases open collaboration among researchers, United Nations and government officials, entrepreneurs, and the public.
Volume highlights include:
- Case studies of projects working with local and national governments, and through public-private partnerships, to make the most of the large volume of complex and diverse Earth science information sources
- Applications from diverse disciplines including wetland preservation, food security, water quality, marine conservation, disasters, urbanization, drought and land degradation, and greenhouse gas monitoring
- Examples of internationally coordinated initiatives that are driving progress on three landmark United Nations agreements
- Resources for decision-makers and practitioners in local and national governments
The American Geophysical Union promotes discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of humanity. Its publications disseminate scientific knowledge and provide resources for researchers, students, and professionals.
Find out more in this Q&A with the lead editor.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 658
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication Page
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
FOREWORD
GLOSSARY
1 Introduction to Global Sustainability Frameworks and the Role of Earth Observations
1.1. INTRODUCTION
1.2. THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
1.3. THE SENDAI FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
1.4. THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
1.5. THE GROUP ON EARTH OBSERVATIONS (GEO)
1.6. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CREATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
1.7. CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Part I: Case Studies of Earth Observation Applications for Global Policy Frameworks
2 Observations to Underpin Policy: Examples of Ocean and Coastal Observations in Support of the Sendai Framework, the Paris Agreement, and Sustainable Development Goal 14
2.1. INTRODUCTION
2.2. OCEAN AND COASTAL OBSERVATIONS IN SUPPORT OF RISK REDUCTION FOR THE SENDAI FRAMEWORK ON DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
2.3. OCEAN AND COASTAL OBSERVATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT
2.4. OCEAN AND COASTAL OBSERVATIONS IN SUPPORT OF SDG 14: LIFE BELOW WATER
2.5. CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
3 A Bird’s‐Eye View of Monitoring and Management of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas
3.1. INTRODUCTION
3.2. LITERATURE REVIEW ON CONSERVATION POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND PROTECTED AREAS, AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO HUMAN SOCIETY
3.3. METHODOLOGY
3.4. RESULTS FOR THE WADDEN SEA
3.5. RESULTS FOR DOÑANA NATIONAL PARK
3.6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
4 Earth Observation in Support of SDG 6.3.2/6.6.1: Reporting Surface Water Quality
4.1. INTRODUCTION
4.2. ADDRESSING WATER QUALITY THROUGH SDGS
4.3. MONITORING APPROACHES, COMPLEMENTARY ROLES, AND GAPS
4.4. OVERVIEW OF AQUATIC REMOTE SENSING
4.5. IMAGES TO DATA AND INFORMATION, OVERVIEW OF ALGORITHM AND APPROACHES
4.6. EO FOR WATER QUALITY APPLICATIONS
4.7. LIMITATIONS AND GAPS IN EO
4.8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
5 The Fate of Wetlands: Can the View From Space Help Us to Stop and Reverse Their Global Decline?
5.1. INTRODUCTION: WETLANDS MONITORING FROM SPACE
5.2. GLOBAL WETLAND OBSERVATION AS COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
5.3. CASE STUDIES HIGHLIGHTING THE POTENTIAL OF EARTH OBSERVATION FOR WETLANDS
5.4. DATA AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURES SUPPORTING WETLAND MONITORING
5.5. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
6 Land Under Stress: Earth Observation‐Based Drought Risk Monitoring for Sustainable Development
6.1. INTRODUCTION
6.2. THE ROLE OF EO FOR DROUGHT MONITORING
6.3. EO‐BASED DROUGHT RISK MONITORING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
6.4. CASE STUDY: EO‐BASED DROUGHT STRESS MONITORING IN SOUTH AFRICA
6.5. CONCLUDING REMARKS: EO AS A SUPPORT TOOL FOR DROUGHT RISK MONITORING TO SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
7 Building Risk‐Informed Communities
7.1. INTRODUCTION
7.2. DEFINING URBAN BOUNDARIES
7.3. EARTH OBSERVATIONS FOR BUILDING RISK‐INFORMED COMMUNITIES
7.4. CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
8 Satellite Analysis Ready Data for the Sustainable Development Goals
8.1. INTRODUCTION
8.2. ANALYSIS READY DATA
8.3. OPEN DATA CUBE
8.4. AFRICA REGIONAL DATA CUBE
8.5. CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Part II: GEO Initiatives in Support of Global Policy Frameworks
9 EO4SDG: A GEO Initiative on Earth Observations for Sustainable Development Goals
9.1. INTRODUCTION
9.2. EO4SDG: INTEGRATING EO INTO GLOBAL SDG MONITORING METHODOLOGIES
9.3. THE EARTH OBSERVATIONS TOOLKIT FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
9.4. INEGI'S USE OF EARTH OBSERVATIONS FOR OFFICIAL STATISTICS AND SDG MONITORING
9.5. CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
10 GEO Global Agricultural Monitoring and Global Policy Frameworks
10.1. INTRODUCTION
10.2. GEOGLAM: AGRICULTURAL MONITORING FOR STABILIZING MARKETS AND MORE
10.3. MORE THAN REPORTING: EO TO EMPOWER DECISIONS AND ACTION
10.4. GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE: A GEOGLAM RESEARCH AGENDA TO SUPPORT GLOBAL POLICY FRAMEWORKS
10.5. THE WAY FORWARD AND CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
11 The Global Observation System for Mercury (GOS
4
M)
11.1. INTRODUCTION
11.2. BASIS AND OBJECTIVES
11.3. GOS
4
M IN THE CONTEXT OF GEO AND THE MINAMATA CONVENTION ON MERCURY
11.4. FROM THE GEOSS PLATFORM TO THE GEO KNOWLEDGE HUB
11.5. IMPLEMENTING THE FLAGSHIP
11.6. SURVEYS ON MERCURY MEASUREMENTS IN MEDIA
11.7. CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
12 The Group on Earth Observations Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Initiative
12.1. INTRODUCTION
12.2. THE GROUP ON EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND CARBON
12.3. THE GEO CARBON AND GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE
12.4. GEO‐C IMPLEMENTATION AND PLANS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
13 The GEO‐DARMA Framework as a Mechanism for Future Increased Use of Satellite Data in Pursuit of Global Domestic Resource Mobilization Goals
13.1. INTRODUCTION
13.2. GEO‐DARMA OVERVIEW
13.3. GEO‐DARMA PROJECTS
REFERENCES
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Tsunami deaths including disaster occurrences 1996–2015
Table 2.2 Major storm surge disasters in recent years
Table 2.3 The essential climate variables
Table 2.4 Monitoring parameters for eutrophication to track progress agains...
Table 2.5 Monitoring parameters for marine plastic litter to track progress...
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Measuring water‐related ecosystems in the context of the SDGs and...
Chapter 7
Table 7.1 Recent huayco events in Chaclacayo and Lurigancho districts
Chapter 9
Table 9.1 Sustainable Development Goals: earth observations in service of t...
Table 9.2 SDG indicators where geospatial information directly contributes ...
Table 9.3 Indicators that geospatial information significantly supports and...
Table 9.4 Comments on indicators and applicability
Chapter 10
Table 10.1 GEOGLAM crop monitor impact examples and their contributions to ...
Chapter 11
Table 11.1 Distribution of active monitoring sites among networks and progr...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 The ocean and coasts at the core of the Sustainable Development G...
Figure 2.2 The DART system network as of November 2018
Figure 2.3 Geoid potential and wave height is estimated with (a) the altimet...
Figure 2.4 Operational status of the GLOSS core network as of June 2022 (fro...
Figure 2.5 Key climate hazards identified in the adaptation component of the...
Figure 2.6 Contribution of Earth observations data and information services ...
Figure 2.7 (a) Trends of remote sensing derived chlorophyll across the Medit...
Figure 2.8 Distribution of plastic marine debris collected in 6,136 surface ...
Figure 2.9 Reporting mechanisms for Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 1...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 The Natura 2000 network of EU28
Figure 3.2 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves across the world (2017). Basemap source...
Figure 3.3 CICES ES Wadden Sea classification.
Figure 3.4 Flowchart for the data fusion module.
Figure 3.5 Chlorophyll‐a values (μ/l) from MODIS and MERIS for 15 March 2009...
Figure 3.6 Results of different fusion techniques for chlorophyll‐a values i...
Figure 3.7 Different bathymetry data sets available for the Xynthia area: (a...
Figure 3.8 Results of different fusion techniques for the Xynthia area: (a) ...
Figure 3.9 Using EO to achieve maximum benefit.
Figure 3.10 Location of the Wadden Sea (from Schuerch et al., 2014/with perm...
Figure 3.11 Diagram representing the storyline developed for the Wadden Sea,...
Figure 3.12 Bayesian Network for Wadden Sea.
Figure 3.13 Maps of Doñana National Park
Figure 3.14 The process was carried out through a series of workshops, throu...
Figure 3.15 Hydroperiod trend (Kendall's tau) of water bodies on the Doñana'...
Figure 3.16 Model calibration. Relationship between the best NDVI estimator ...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 The process of how the visible and near‐infrared (NIR) solar phot...
Figure 4.2 The water color spectra for three different water types. The grey...
Figure 4.3 The chronology of current satellite sensors (with free data polic...
Figure 4.4 Time series of lake‐averaged (a) TSS and (b) chlorophyll‐a produc...
Figure 4.5 Spatial distribution of the turbidity in the first decade of Octo...
Figure 4.6 View of the 102 South African water bodies included in the EONEMP...
Figure 4.7 Snapshot of world water quality assessment web portal, which show...
Figure 4.8 (a) My Location tab of CyAN app, with storage of all set location...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Examples of (a,b) water and wetness clasified product and (c,d) w...
Figure 5.2 Examples of the portfolio of information products delivered under...
Figure 5.3 Example maps showing the described wetland products for the Marai...
Figure 5.4 The distribution of mangroves as a function of latitude and longi...
Figure 5.5 Mangrove change map for the Sine‐Saloum, Senegal: (a) False‐color...
Figure 5.6 Screenshot of the GEO‐Wetlands Community Portal demonstrating its...
Figure 5.7 Concept, components, software, and data sources of the GEO‐Wetlan...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Drought indices during peak growing periods in Africa. The Standa...
Figure 6.2 Drought Cycle Management
Figure 6.3 Precipitation sum for October to December for South Africa based ...
Figure 6.4 Drought severity in South Africa for 2000–2019. Based on the Weig...
Figure 6.5 Maize production (left axis) and maize area planted (right axis) ...
Figure 6.6 Drought impact on cropland in Free State Province based on MODIS ...
Figure 6.7 Number of people in drought‐affected agricultural areas in South ...
Figure 6.8 Assessment of affected people per drought severity class compared...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Map of Lima and the surrounding drainage basin
Figure 7.2 Examining heat‐related deaths during the 1995 Chicago heat wave (...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 WOFS water detection results show the percentage of observations ...
Figure 8.2 WOFS analysis results (a) from 1984 through 2016 (32 years) show ...
Figure 8.3 NDVI anomaly product for a portion of the East Chenene Forest Res...
Figure 8.4 NDVI anomaly threshold product for a portion of the East Chenene ...
Figure 8.5 Deforestation analysis products for 2004 thru 2013 from two sourc...
Figure 8.6 Fractional cover (FC) in (a) 2000 and (b) 2017 over the south Ank...
Figure 8.7 Fractional cover (FC) in (a) 2000 and (b) 2017 over the north Ank...
Figure 8.8 (a) A Landsat RGB image of Freetown in 2012 is shown. (b) An esti...
Figure 8.9 An estimation of the urban area using the ARDC and the NDBI algor...
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Relational diagram demonstrating the list of tools included in th...
Figure 9.2 Mexican Geospatial Data Cube processes and infrastructure.
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 A timeline of monthly wheat prices from 1960 to 2011, with event...
Figure 10.2 A brief overview of remote sensing of agriculture, 1970s–2010s, ...
Figure 10.3 The activities, objectives, workflow, and context of GEOGLAM, wh...
Figure 10.4 (a) Geographic composite of both the CM4AMIS and CM4EW reports, ...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 Conceptual view of GOS
4
M workflow
Figure 11.2 GOS
4
M graphical user interface as a GEOSS mirror site
Figure 11.3 GOS
4
M governing bodies.
Figure 11.4 In situ atmospheric mercury measurements and most important netw...
Figure 11.5 (a) CARIBIC flights, (b) ETMEP program, (c) MEDOCEANOR program o...
Figure 11.6 Locations of samples of more than 33,000 species of marine mamma...
Chapter 12
Figure 12.1 Annual mean CO
2
mole fraction (blue line) at Mauna Loa and the g...
Figure 12.2 Temperature changes from 1850 to 1900 versus cumulative CO
2
emis...
Figure 12.3 The Paris Agreement ambition mechanism in the light of political...
Chapter 13
Figure 13.1 Regional institutions collaborating with GEO‐DARMA.
Figure 13.2 Targeted areas for flood monitoring in Mandalay, based on histor...
Guide
Cover Page
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication Page
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
FOREWORD
GLOSSARY
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Index
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
ii
iii
iv
v
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xv
xvii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
145
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
Geophysical Monograph Series
224Hydrodynamics of Time‐Periodic Groundwater Flow: Diffusion Waves in Porous MediaJoe S. Depner and Todd C. Rasmussen (Auth.)
225Active Global SeismologyIbrahim Cemen and Yucel Yilmaz (Eds.)
226Climate ExtremesSimon Wang (Ed.)
227Fault Zone Dynamic ProcessesMarion Thomas (Ed.)
228Flood Damage Survey and Assessment: New Insights from Research and PracticeDaniela Molinari, Scira Menoni, and Francesco Ballio (Eds.)
229Water‐Energy‐Food Nexus – Principles and PracticesP. Abdul Salam, Sangam Shrestha, Vishnu Prasad Pandey, and Anil K Anal (Eds.)
230Dawn–Dusk Asymmetries in Planetary Plasma EnvironmentsStein Haaland, Andrei Rounov, and Colin Forsyth (Eds.)
231Bioenergy and Land Use ChangeZhangcai Qin, Umakant Mishra, and Astley Hastings (Eds.)
232Microstructural Geochronology: Planetary Records Down to Atom ScaleDesmond Moser, Fernando Corfu, James Darling, Steven Reddy, and Kimberly Tait (Eds.)
233Global Flood Hazard: Applications in Modeling, Mapping and ForecastingGuy Schumann, Paul D. Bates, Giuseppe T. Aronica, and Heiko Apel (Eds.)
234Pre‐Earthquake Processes: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Earthquake Prediction StudiesDimitar Ouzounov, Sergey Pulinets, Katsumi Hattori, and Patrick Taylor (Eds.)
235Electric Currents in Geospace and BeyondAndreas Keiling, Octav Marghitu, and Michael Wheatland (Eds.)
236 Quantifying Uncertainty in Subsurface SystemsCeline Scheidt, Lewis Li, and Jef Caers (Eds.)
237Petroleum EngineeringMoshood Sanni (Ed.)
238Geological Carbon Storage: Subsurface Seals and Caprock IntegrityStephanie Vialle, Jonathan Ajo‐Franklin, and J. William Carey (Eds.)
239Lithospheric DiscontinuitiesHuaiyu Yuan and Barbara Romanowicz (Eds.)
240Chemostratigraphy Across Major Chronological ErasAlcides N.Sial, Claudio Gaucher, Muthuvairavasamy Ramkumar, and Valderez Pinto Ferreira (Eds.)
241Mathematical Geoenergy: Discovery, Depletion, and RenewalPaul Pukite, Dennis Coyne, and Daniel Challou (Eds.)
242 Ore Deposits: Origin, Exploration, and ExploitationSophie Decree and Laurence Robb (Eds.)
243Kuroshio Current: Physical, Biogeochemical and Ecosystem DynamicsTakeyoshi Nagai, Hiroaki Saito, Koji Suzuki, and Motomitsu Takahashi (Eds.)
244Geomagnetically Induced Currents from the Sun to the Power GridJennifer L. Gannon, Andrei Swidinsky, and Zhonghua Xu (Eds.)
245Shale: Subsurface Science and EngineeringThomas Dewers, Jason Heath, and Marcelo Sánchez (Eds.)
246Submarine Landslides: Subaqueous Mass Transport Deposits From Outcrops to Seismic ProfilesKei Ogata, Andrea Festa, and Gian Andrea Pini (Eds.)
247Iceland: Tectonics, Volcanics, and Glacial FeaturesTamie J. Jovanelly
248Dayside Magnetosphere InteractionsQiugang Zong, Philippe Escoubet, David Sibeck, Guan Le, and Hui Zhang (Eds.)
249Carbon in Earth’s InteriorCraig E. Manning, Jung‐Fu Lin, and Wendy L. Mao (Eds.)
250Nitrogen Overload: Environmental Degradation, Ramifications, and Economic CostsBrian G. Katz
251Biogeochemical Cycles: Ecological Drivers and Environmental ImpactKaterina Dontsova, Zsuzsanna Balogh‐Brunstad, and Gaël Le Roux (Eds.)
252Seismoelectric Exploration: Theory, Experiments, and ApplicationsNiels Grobbe, André Revil, Zhenya Zhu, and Evert Slob (Eds.)
253El Niño Southern Oscillation in a Changing ClimateMichael J. McPhaden, Agus Santoso, and Wenju Cai (Eds.)
254Dynamic Magma EvolutionFrancesco Vetere (Ed.)
255Large Igneous Provinces: A Driver of Global Environmental and Biotic ChangesRichard. E. Ernst, Alexander J. Dickson, and Andrey Bekker (Eds.)
256Coastal Ecosystems in Transition: A Comparative Analysis of the Northern Adriatic and Chesapeake BayThomas C. Malone, Alenka Malej, and Jadran Faganeli (Eds.)
257Hydrogeology, Chemical Weathering, and Soil FormationAllen Hunt, Markus Egli, and Boris Faybishenko (Eds.)
258Solar Physics and Solar WindNour E. Raouafi and Angelos Vourlidas (Eds.)
259Magnetospheres in the Solar SystemRomain Maggiolo, Nicolas André, Hiroshi Hasegawa, and Daniel T. Welling (Eds.)
260Ionosphere Dynamics and ApplicationsChaosong Huang and Gang Lu (Eds.)
261Upper Atmosphere Dynamics and EnergeticsWenbin Wang and Yongliang Zhang (Eds.)
262Space Weather Effects and ApplicationsAnthea J. Coster, Philip J. Erickson, and Louis J. Lanzerotti (Eds.)
263Mantle Convection and Surface ExpressionsHauke Marquardt, Maxim Ballmer, Sanne Cottaar, and Jasper Konter (Eds.)
264Crustal Magmatic System Evolution: Anatomy, Architecture, and Physico‐Chemical ProcessesMatteo Masotta, Christoph Beier, and Silvio Mollo (Eds.)
265Global Drought and Flood: Observation, Modeling, and PredictionHuan Wu, Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Qiuhong Tang, and Philip J. Ward (Eds.)
266Magma Redox GeochemistryRoberto Moretti and Daniel R. Neuville (Eds.)
267Wetland Carbon and Environmental ManagementKen W. Krauss, Zhiliang Zhu, and Camille L. Stagg (Eds.)
268Distributed Acoustic Sensing in Geophysics: Methods and ApplicationsYingping Li, Martin Karrenbach, and Jonathan B. Ajo‐Franklin (Eds.)
269Congo Basin Hydrology, Climate, and Biogeochemistry: A Foundation for the Future (English version)Raphael M. Tshimanga, Guy D. Moukandi N’kaya, and Douglas Alsdorf (Eds.)
269Hydrologie, climat et biogéochimie du bassin du Congo: une base pour l’avenir (version française)Raphael M. Tshimanga, Guy D. Moukandi N’kaya, et Douglas Alsdorf (Éditeurs)
270Muography: Exploring Earth’s Subsurface with Elementary ParticlesLászló Oláh, Hiroyuki K. M. Tanaka, and Dezso˝ Varga (Eds.)
271Remote Sensing of Water‐Related HazardsKe Zhang, Yang Hong, and Amir AghaKouchak (Eds.)
272Geophysical Monitoring for Geologic Carbon StorageLianjie Huang (Ed.)
273Isotopic Constraints on Earth System ProcessesKenneth W. W. Sims, Kate Maher, and Daniel P. Schrag (Eds.)274Earth Observation Applications and Global Policy Frameworks Argyro Kavvada, Douglas Cripe, and Lawrence Friedl (Eds.)
Earth Observation Applications and Global Policy Frameworks
Geophysical Monograph 274
Argyro KavvadaDouglas CripeLawrence Friedl
Editors
This Work is a co‐publication of the American Geophysical Union and John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
This edition first published 2022© 2022 American Geophysical Union
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Published under the aegis of the AGU Publications Committee
Matthew Giampoala, Vice President, PublicationsCarol Frost, Chair, Publications CommitteeFor details about the American Geophysical Union visit us at www.agu.org.
The right of Argyro Kavvada, Douglas Cripe, and Lawrence Friedl to be identified as the editors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data applied forHardback ISBN: 9781119536765
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © NASA Earth Observatory images by Lauren Dauphin, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey
To my amazing mom, Maria Kavvada
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Kwame Adu AgyekumGEO Blue PlanetUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA;andRegional Marine CenterDepartment of Marine and Fisheries Sciences University of Ghana‐LegonAccra, Ghana
Daniel BaderCenter for Climate Systems ResearchColumbia UniversityNew York, USA;andNASA Goddard Institute for Space StudiesColumbia University Earth InstituteNew York, USA
Juan BazoRed Cross Red Crescent Climate CentreThe Hague, The Netherlands;andTechnological University of PeruLima, Peru
Inbal Becker‐ReshefDepartment of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA;andGroup on Earth Observations Global Agricultural Monitoring SecretariatGeneva, Switzerland
Mariantonia BencardinoCNR Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchRende, Italy
Antonio BombelliEuro‐Mediterranean Centre on Climate ChangeEuropean Global Ocean Observing SystemViterbo, Italy
Christian BraneonSciSpace LLCBethesda, Maryland, USA;andNASA Goddard Institute for Space StudiesNew York, USA
Pete BuntingDepartment of Geography and Earth SciencesAberystwyth UniversityAberystwyth, UK
Jillian CampbellUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeNairobi, Kenya
Pep CanadellGlobal Carbon ProjectCSIRO Oceans and AtmosphereCanberra, Australia
Louis CelliersGEO Blue PlanetUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA;andClimate Service Center GermanyHelmholtz‐Zentrum GeesthachtHamburg, Germany
Sergio CinnirellaCNR Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchRende, Italy
Natalie CornishRemote Sensing Solutions GmbHBaierbrunn, Germany
María Máñez CostaClimate Service Center GermanyHelmholtz‐Zentrum GeesthachtHamburg, Germany
Douglas CripeGroup on Earth ObservationsGeneva, Switzerland
David CrispJet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena, California, USA
Francesco D’AmoreCNR Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchRende, Italy
Phil DeColaSigma Space CorporationLanham, Maryland, USA
Arnold G. DekkerSatDek Pty LtdSutton, Australia
Francesco De SimoneCNR Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchRende, Italy
Han DolmanVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdam, The Netherlands
Mark DowellDirectorate‐General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEsEuropean CommissionBrussels, Belgium;andSustainable ResourcesEuropean Commission Joint Research CenterIspra, Italy
Olena DubovykGeography DepartmentUniversity of BergenBergen, Norway
Jonas EberleFriedrich Schiller University JenaJena, Germany
Andrew EddyAthena GlobalSardy‐lès‐Épiry, France
Ghada El SerafyDeltaresDelft, The Netherlands;andDelft University of TechnologyDelft, The Netherlands
Mauro FacchiniDirectorate‐General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEsEuropean CommissionBrussels, Belgium
Temilola FatoyinboBiospheric Sciences LaboratoryNASA Goddard Space Flight CenterGreenbelt, Maryland, USA
Jonas FrankeRemote Sensing Solutions GmbHBaierbrunn, Germany
Lawrence FriedlEarth Science DivisionNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, D.C., USA
Laura FriedrichUnited Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring CentreCambridge, UK
Nicolas GerberCenter for Development ResearchUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany
Gohar GhazaryanCenter for Remote Sensing of Land SurfacesUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany;andLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape ResearchMüncheberg, Germany
Valerie GrawGeomatics Research GroupRuhr‐University BochumBochum, Germany
Steven GrebUniversity of Wisconsin‐MadisonMadison, Wisconsin, USA
Ian Michael HedgecockCNR Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchRende, Italy
Jouni HeiskanenIntegrated Carbon Observation SystemERIC Head OfficeHelsinki, Finland
Konrad HentzeDepartment of GeographyUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany
Kirsten IsenseeOcean Science SectionIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCOParis, France
Chu IshidaJapan Aerospace Exploration AgencyTokyo, Japan
Ian JarvisGroup on Earth Observations Global Agricultural Monitoring SecretariatGeneva, Switzerland
Jimena JuárezInstituto Nacional de Estadística y GeografíaMexico City, Mexico
Christopher O. JusticeDepartment of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA
Argyro KavvadaEarth Science DivisionNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, DC, USA;andBooz Allen HamiltonMcLean, Virginia, USA
Brian D. KilloughNASA Langley Research CenterThe College of William and MaryHampton, Virginia, USA
Andrew KruczkiewiczInternational Research Institute for Climate and SocietyColumbia UniversityNew York, USA;andRed Cross Red Crescent Climate CentreThe Hague, The Netherlands
Werner KutschIntegrated Carbon Observation SystemERIC Head OfficeHelsinki, Finland
David LagomasinoBiospheric Sciences LaboratoryNASA Goddard Space Flight CenterGreenbelt, Maryland, USA;andDepartment of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA
Laura LorenzoniNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, D.C., USA
Fabian LöwFederal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster AssistanceBonn, Germany
Richard LucasCentre for Ecosystem ScienceSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental ScienceThe University of New South WalesSydney, Australia
Denis MachariaRegional Centre for Mapping of Resources for DevelopmentNairobi, Kenya
Shanna McClainNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, D.C., USA;andAmerican Association for the Advancement of ScienceWashington, D.C., USA
Pablo F. MéndezDoñana Biological StationDepartment of Wetland EcologySeville, Spain
Paloma MerodioInstituto Nacional de Estadística y GeografíaMexico City, Mexico
Hiroyuki MuraokaRiver Basin Research Center Gifu UniversityGifu, Japan
Robert NdugwaUnited Nations Human Settlements ProgramNairobi, Kenya
André ObregönCopernicus Climate Change ServiceEuropean Centre for Medium‐Range Weather ForecastsReading, UK
Michael OwenDepartment of Earth and Environmental SciencesColumbia UniversityNew York, USA
Marc PaganiniEuropean Space AgencyFrascati, Italy
Nima PahlevanScience Systems and Applications Inc.NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterGreenbelt, Maryland, USA
Ivan PetitevilleEuropean Space AgencyFrascati, Italy
Nicola PirroneCNR Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchRende, Italy
Joanna PostSecretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUN CampusBonn, Germany
Dimitris PoursanidisFoundation for Research and Technology‐HellasInstitute of Applied and Computational MathematicsHeraklion, Crete, Greece
Antonello ProvenzaleInstitute of Geosciences and GeoresourcesPisa, Italy
Steven RamageGroup on Earth ObservationsGeneva, Switzerland
Lisa‐Maria RebeloRegional Office for Southeast Asia and The MekongInternational Water Management InstituteVientiane, Laos
Carolin RichterGlobal Climate Observing SystemWorld Meteorological OrganizationGeneva, Switzerland
Michael RifflerGeoVille Information SystemsInnsbruck, Austria
Ake Rosenqvistsolo Earth ObservationTokyo, Japan
Nobuko SaigusaCenter for Global Environmental ResearchNational Institute for Environmental StudiesTsukuba, Japan
Robert J. ScholesGlobal Change InstituteUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, South Africa
Katherina SchooOcean Science SectionIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCOParis, France
Jonas SchreierCenter for Remote Sensing of Land SurfacesUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany
Joerg SchultzEuropean Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological SatellitesDarmstadt, Germany
Leah M. SeguiGEO Blue PlanetUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA;andNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service/Satellite Oceanography and Climatology DivisionCollege Park, Maryland, USA
Emily A. SmailEarth System Science Interdisciplinary CenterUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA;andGEO Blue PlanetUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA;andNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service/Satellite Oceanography and Climatology DivisionCollege Park, Maryland, USA
Francesca SprovieriCNR Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchRende, Italy
Stefanie SteinbachDepartment of GeographyUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany;andDepartment of GeographyRuhr‐University BochumBochum, Germany
Adrian StrauchCenter for Remote Sensing of Land SurfacesUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany;andDepartment of GeographyUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany
Daniel TakakiGEO Blue PlanetUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA;andNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service/Satellite Oceanography and Climatology DivisionCollege Park, Maryland, USA
Oksana TarasovaResearch DepartmentWorld Meteorological OrganizationGeneva, Switzerland
Claas TeichmannClimate Service Center GermanyHelmholtz‐Zentrum GeesthachtHamburg, Germany
Frank ThonfeldCenter for Remote Sensing of Land SurfacesUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany;andDepartment of GeographyUniversity of BonnBonn, Germany;andGerman Remote Sensing Data CenterGerman Aerospace CenterWessling, Germany
Christian TottrupDHI A/SHørsholm, Denmark
Peeranan TowashirapornAsian Disaster Preparedness CentreBangkok, Thailand
Daniel TsegaiUnited Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationBonn, Germany
Yvonne WalzInstitute for Environment and Human SecurityUnited Nations UniversityBonn, Germany
Keran WangUnited Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PacificBangkok, Thailand
Alyssa K. WhitcraftDepartment of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland, USA;andGroup on Earth Observations Global Agricultural Monitoring SecretariatGeneva, Switzerland
FOREWORD
Governments, industry, and the scientific community have long recognized the critical importance of Earth observations to create innovative solutions in support of many sectors of society. These include food security, clean water and sanitation, energy, ecosystem services, economic growth, biodiversity and pollutants, urbanization, disasters management, disease prevention, water security, climate action, and resilience. Currently, however, the Earth science data, tools, applications, and model outputs are not always fully exploited by those who need them the most. International cooperation and collaboration are therefore imperative to address global challenges that require transdisciplinary knowledge and coordination among diverse communities and geographies to deliver results at the local level. Such cooperation also promotes consistency or complementarity in methodology and tools development, and fosters a large and diverse group of experts and practitioners to increase Earth observation capacity and adoption for societal benefit. Working together also enables the development of new applications that integrate technologies, such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence, with Earth observations.
The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) is a global partnership connecting governments, academic and research institutions, international, nongovernmental and civil society organisations, and businesses. GEO is committed to full and open access to Earth observation data and knowledge to better assess the overall health of our planet and monitor change, identify and implement solutions, and deliver impacts at local, national, regional, and global levels. GEO operates globally through a work program, which is refreshed every 3 years. This work programme brings together practitioners from different sectors and different disciplines working collaboratively to solve the planetary challenges that we face. With over a hundred countries engaged in GEO, this global community is working to empower decision makers at all levels to take action based on trusted science‐based information.
This book invites you to explore current capabilities and challenges, as well as new opportunities, in applying Earth science knowledge and insights to advance sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, and climate action. The book includes case studies involving projects that are working with local and national governments, and through public‐private partnerships, to demonstrate impacts of Earth observation data, tools, and technologies across disciplines as diverse as wetland preservation, food security, water quality, marine conservation, disasters, urbanization, drought and land degradation, greenhouse gas monitoring, and forest inventories. The book also includes examples of internationally coordinated GEO initiatives that are driving progress on three landmark United Nations agreements, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the Paris Climate Agreement.
This publication serves as a valuable resource for a variety of readers including those engaged in the three global policy agendas, as well as decision makers and practitioners in local and national governments. It aims to stimulate discussion among the global GEO community and partners about new opportunities to contribute to sustainable Earth observation solutions and enable delivery of useful Earth science applications and sustained impact to users across regions.
Yana GevorgyanDirector of SecretariatGroup on Earth Observations
1Introduction to Global Sustainability Frameworks and the Role of Earth Observations
Argyro Kavvada1,2, Douglas Cripe3, and Lawrence Friedl1
1 Earth Science Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., USA
2 Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia, USA
3 Group on Earth Observations, Geneva, Switzerland
ABSTRACT
The year 2015 was a pioneering year for global development due to the concurrent adoption of three landmark United Nations (UN) agreements: the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the 21st Conference of Parties Paris Climate Agreement. Although these frameworks differ in structure, legal scheme, and method of implementation, each serves as a confirmation of the world’s commitment to work toward common goals for transitioning to more resilient, risk‐informed, and sustainable societies, while focusing on national priorities and challenges. This chapter introduces how Earth observation experts are working with end users to apply Earth observation insights in support of global environmental and societal policy across domains as diverse as wetland preservation, food security, water quality, marine conservation, air quality, human settlements, urban resilience, drought and land degradation, greenhouse gas monitoring, and forest inventories. It is hoped that the kinds of sound, evidence‐based decision making demonstrated in the chapters that follow will encourage sustainable behavior by humankind in relation to Earth's resources, leading to more sustainable, resilient, and risk‐informed societies.
1.1. INTRODUCTION
The year 2015 was a pioneering year for global development due to the concurrent adoption of three landmark United Nations agreements: the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015‐2030 (UNISDR, 2015), the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (U.N. Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2015), and the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) Paris Climate Agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). Although these frameworks differ in structure, legal scheme, and method of implementation, each serves as a confirmation of the world's commitment to work toward common goals for transitioning to more resilient, risk‐informed, and sustainable societies. All three agreements recognize the strong interdependencies across the social, economic, and environmental facets of sustainable development, manifest in the context of a growing world economy, and under the increasing influence of human activities on the environment, human livelihoods, and well‐being.
Achieving sustainable development, including ending poverty and hunger in all their forms, requires a holistic approach to tackle the threats posed by a changing climate, natural hazards, and human‐made disasters. Over the past 30 years, substantial attention has been placed on incorporating climate mitigation and adaptation, and disaster risk reduction, into sustainable development policies to enable the sustainability of solutions to vulnerability issues from local to global scales. To this end, the post‐2015 global agreements, with their emphasis on thorough, participatory, and systematic follow‐up and review, present an immense opportunity to apply a wide range of data sources, technology, and innovation. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for the need to harness “a wide range of data, including Earth observations and geospatial information, while ensuring national ownership in supporting and tracking progress” (cf., O. D. D. S., 2015, p. 32). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2015) explains that, to understand disaster risk, it is important to
promote and enhance, through international cooperation, including technology transfer, access to and the sharing and use of non‐sensitive data and information, as appropriate, communications and geospatial and space‐based technologies and related services; maintain and strengthen in situ and remotely‐ sensed earth and climate observations; and strengthen the utilization of media, including social media, traditional media, big data and mobile phone networks, to support national measures for successful disaster risk communication. (p.16)
Furthermore, the Paris Climate Agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015) emphasizes the importance of strengthening scientific knowledge about climate, including “systematic observation of the climate system and early warning systems, in a manner that informs climate services and supports decision‐making” (p. 10).
Earth observations (EO), defined as the “gathering of information about Earth's physical, chemical and biological system” (Group on Earth Observations, n.d.), provide far‐reaching capabilities in monitoring the dynamics of our environment and landscape. The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) is a partnership of more than 100 governments and participating organizations that promotes a world where coordinated, comprehensive, and sustained EO informs decision making. EO also enable the realization of benefits in many areas of society: environment and resource management, agriculture and food security, public health surveillance, risk management, and urban development, among others. Harnessing these benefits is particularly important to promote a more interconnected approach to sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, and climate change. EO and geospatial data play insightful roles in monitoring targets, tracking progress, evaluating impact, and helping nations and stakeholders assess alternatives to support planning and policy decisions, and in formulating new priorities to drive progress on social, economic, and environmental sustainability.
Combined with demographic and statistical data, socioeconomic information, volunteered geographic information, and citizen science, EO enables countries to analyze and model conditions, create maps and other visualizations, evaluate impacts across sectors and regions, monitor change over time in a consistent and standardized manner, and improve accountability. Spatially comprehensive and explicit geospatial data, including EO, offer disaggregation (by geographic location or other attributes relevant in national contexts) and granularity of socioeconomic targets and indicators, complement national statistics for greater accuracy, and support planning processes and resources management (Scott & Rajabifard, 2017). For example, governments can organize more targeted interventions when provided with timely information on hazardous events such as flash floods, landslides, and wildfires, and their impacts on critical road infrastructure. Mapping disruptions in transport infrastructure allows effective planning and resource allocation to safeguard access to hospitals, schools, and airports, particularly for the most vulnerable populations.
Collaboration among Earth science data providers, experts, practitioners, and end‐user communities including prosumers (non‐traditional end‐users that are adopting EO as both data consumers and information producers) facilitates the use of oftentimes complex EO data, combined with social and economic analyses, to produce policy‐relevant information and help governments take further action to combat climate change, halt biodiversity loss, and protect, understand, and leverage the world's oceans for a healthy environment and sustainable economic growth. In many instances, scientists develop and test complex algorithms to retrieve the parameter(s) of interest. Such is the case with satellite observations, for example, since satellite sensors can measure only the intensity of radiation across select bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. Scientists can then validate the derived environmental parameters by means of in situ measurements to further refine the algorithms that produced them. Furthermore, in the best of all situations, EO data from multiple platforms should be combined to produce the most holistic, objective information possible. However, this type of integration is far from trivial, given that EO data come in a variety of formats and standards, not to mention the computing resources needed to process big data streams.
This book is a showcase of international endeavors to apply EO insights in domains as diverse as wetland preservation, food security, water quality, marine conservation, air quality, human settlements, urban resilience, drought and land degradation, greenhouse gas monitoring, and forest inventories. There are two parts in this book. Part I consists of evidence‐based examples of Earth science applications and research for sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, and climate change. The featured case studies include applied research, EO‐integrated methods and tools, and efforts to mainstream these methods into national processes, decision support systems, and international guidelines. Part II focuses on how internationally coordinated GEO activities are integrating such Earth science endeavors and are contributing toward achieving progress on the three global agendas. Several chapters also review challenges in applying an integrated, cross‐domain approach, which is critical for addressing these pressing global issues.
This introductory chapter is structured as follows: first, we showcase a brief overview of the three global agendas on disaster risk reduction, climate change, and sustainable development, and the current state and challenges of EO applications in support of these frameworks. Next, we provide an overview of GEO's vision, history, engagement priorities, and efforts to broaden the use of EO beyond specialized scientific and other traditional end‐user communities. The chapter closes with lessons learned from the experience of developing and implementing the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and provides insights on the protocol's mechanisms that serve as a paradigm for the three international agreements of focus in this book.
1.2. THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (U.N. Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2015), adopted by 193 heads of state and other world leaders at a historic U.N. summit in September 2015, incorporates 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and associated targets that entered officially into force on 1 January 2016. The SDGs build on the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), initiated by the U.N. in the year 2000 following the adoption of the U.N. Millennium Declaration (U.N. Assembly, 2000) and aimed by 2015 to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development. Unlike the MDGs, the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda are universal, and were developed to be used by all countries as a plan for action toward achieving peace and prosperity. Furthermore, the SDGs place emphasis on country‐led tracking, monitoring, and progress reporting through the use of science, technology, and innovation, and notably, through new data acquisition and integration processes.
The concept of sustainable development goes back a long way, and was more widely adopted following the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, also known as the Stockholm Conference, in 1972 (Adams, 2008). This conference led to the adoption of 26 principles and 109 recommendations linking environmental protection with sustainable development, and highlighted that defending and improving the environment must be pursued by all countries. It was not until the end of the twentieth century and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September 2002, however, that an integrated approach to sustainable development emerged. This new approach sought to address the social, economic, and environmental aspects of development, while also incorporating the need for quality and transparent data and information‐based decision making (Scott & Rajabifard, 2017).
Six years into the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, reliance on geospatial information and EO has gained momentum as countries and relevant stakeholders apply information about people and places into monitoring and evaluation systems to improve human and environmental conditions, and monitor, measure, and implement the SDGs at global to national and local levels. The Sixth Synthesis of Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) 2021, a synthesis of key findings from forty‐two country reports, illustrates the importance of long‐term, transformative and evidence‐based solutions to help countries move forward in an inclusive, resilient, and sustainable manner, while recovering from the global pandemic of COVID‐19 (United Nations, 2021). Colombia's, Namibia's, and Japan's 2021 VNRs include practical examples of applications of remote sensing and other geospatial technologies as a basis for producing SDG indicators (such as chlorophyll‐a concentrations and deviations, the extent and the changes of green vegetation in mountain areas, and ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate), mutual target relationship analysis, and evaluation monitoring (see https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/vnrs/).
Some key challenges remain, however, in mainstreaming EO knowledge in national monitoring processes and decision support systems. These challenges include, but are not limited to:
Institutional barriers. Barriers include constraints and challenges in coordination across levels of government (global, regional, national, subnational, local) and government sectors (ministries, national statistical offices) to inform management and policy, and ultimately to assist governments with moving toward sustainable integrated systems.
Fit for purposefulness. National statistical offices and line ministries often lack customized, practical guidance on how to apply EO to fill known data gaps in SDG monitoring and reporting. This creates challenges at country level given dissimilarities among NSOs and line ministries in their ability and expertise to generate, evaluate, and apply EO knowledge for SDG monitoring, evaluation, and policy setting. Practical guidance can facilitate knowledge sharing, interlinking national experiences, and foster understanding between technical analysts and decision makers of the role, and contributions, of EO in target setting, monitoring, and SDG implementation.
Comparability and consistency among EO data and methodologies. There is a need for defining a foundation for internationally agreed standards and methodological advice that takes into account national and local circumstances. In addition, several NSOs have highlighted the need to define criteria for quality standards and fit‐for‐purpose EO derived information, tailored for the statistical community.
Limitations in reflecting SDG interlinkages and tradeoffs in integrated management strategies across sectors. The global goals represent a network of interconnected targets and indicators, and understanding the range of these feedback mechanisms over space and time is essential for target prioritization and contextualization of the global SDG framework to regional and national contexts (Costanza et al.,
2016
; Allen et al.,
2019
).
Insufficient coordination in capacity development. This challenge spans human, scientific, technological, organizational, institutional, and resource‐based capacities. While a lot of countries are actively engaged in capacity development efforts to enable data awareness and access and sustain use of EO for sustainable development applications, significant gaps persist Many countries, particularly in the developing world, do not have the skills or ability to apply EO data and technologies for their national development or to aptly understand and manage disaster risk, and support plans for adaptation to the impacts of climate change on sustainable development (Kumar et al.,
2019
).
The case studies presented hereafter in this book offer insights into ongoing efforts to address some of these challenges, effectively linking remotely sensed and ground‐based EO resources and knowledge with national statistics, socioeconomic data, citizen science, and ancillary information to facilitate target setting, and to track progress toward the SDGs. Furthermore, these examples illustrate efforts to bring quality data underpinned by EO to decision makers and effectively develop and share clear stories that showcase the impact of data on leaving no one behind and supporting statistically thorough measurement of progress globally, nationally, and locally.
1.3. THE SENDAI FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) following the 2015 Third U.N. World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR) as a successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (ISDR, 2005). Acknowledging the accelerating impact of disasters and their complexity in different parts of the world, SFDRR seeks to “achieve reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries” (UNISDR, 2015, p. 35). SFDRR places key emphasis on understanding and managing disaster risk, as opposed to the antecedent focus on disaster management alone. SFDRR also prioritizes disaster risk governance including a country‐led, all‐of‐society approach, and addresses both natural and human‐made hazards, as well as environmental, technological, and biological risks. To help prevent new disaster risks and decrease those that exist, SFDRR has set four priorities for action: (1) understanding disaster risk, (2) strengthening disaster risk governance, (3) investing in disaster reduction for resilience, and (4) enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to promote recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
Both SFDRR and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development underscore the importance of integrating disaster risk reduction (DRR) across all aspects of sustainable development, and at all levels. Development initiatives can both augment and reduce vulnerability to disasters, and vice versa, as disasters can both create and damage development endeavors and opportunities.
Notably, SDFRR highlights that
more dedicated action needs to be focused on tackling underlying disaster risk drivers, such as the consequences of poverty and inequality, climate change and variability, unplanned and rapid urbanization, poor land management and compounding factors such as demographic change, weak institutional arrangements, non‐risk‐ informed policies, lack of regulation and incentives for private disaster risk reduction investment, complex supply chains, limited availability of technology, unsustainable uses of natural resources, declining ecosystems, pandemics and epidemics. (UNISDR, 2015, p. 10)
In addition, there is emerging evidence from observations and model outputs that climate change can increase disaster risk by changing the intensity, frequency, and spatial extent of extreme events such as landslides, hurricanes, flooding, droughts, wildfires, and heat waves (Cardona et al., 2012).
SFDRR references several documents that indicate how a changing climate impacts disasters and disaster risk. Paragraph 4 of the SFDRR states
disasters, many of which are exacerbated by climate change and which are increasing in frequency and intensity, significantly impede progress towards sustainable development. Evidence indicates that exposure of persons and assets in all countries has increased faster than vulnerability has decreased, thus generating new risks and a steady rise in disaster‐related losses, with a significant economic, social, health, cultural and environmental impact in the short, medium and long term, especially at the local and community levels.
Earth‐observing technologies provide a powerful tool for monitoring and assessing disaster risk and trends in DRR, supporting disaster mitigation and preparedness efforts, enhancing disaster response and recovery capabilities, and providing insights into the interlinkages among disasters, sustainable development, and climate change (CEOS, 2015). The role and usefulness of geospatial information and applications across all aspects of DRR is captured in the Strategic Framework on Geospatial Information and Services for Disaster (UN‐GGIM, 2017), adopted by the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on 2 July 2018. This document serves as a blueprint for member states to inform their disaster risk management processes. The framework identifies five priority areas where a collaborative, cross‐sectoral approach among member states is essential for its successful implementation: (1) governance, (2) awareness raising and capacity building, (3) data management, (4) common infrastructure and services, and (5) resource mobilization. The framework also proposes extensive methodology for managing disaster‐related, geospatial information, including the development of a common database system
of minimum/baseline geospatial information and services requirements, including an initial list of essential elements of information (EEIs) addressing all phases of disaster risk management. These include but are not limited to comprehensive Common Operational Datasets (CODs) and Fundamental Operational Datasets (FODs) such as administrative boundaries; population; critical infrastructures and other exposure datasets; and earth observation data holdings. (UN‐GGIM, 2017, p. 11)
Moving forward, a concerted collaboration among the EO and DRM communities is critical to help address end‐user needs associated with the application of EO across all phases of disasters, and for all types of hazards.
1.4. THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
On 12 December 2015, 196 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, a legally binding, international framework that aims to address anthropogenic contributions to climate change. The Paris Agreement was endorsed 23 years after the signing of the UNFCCC, which was established in 1992 to help the parties organize their efforts to combat climate change by limiting the increase of average global temperature. Representing the pinnacle of multiyear climate change negotiations and aiming to amplify the implementation of the convention, the Paris Agreement focused on strengthening
the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by (a) holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre‐industrial levels, and (b) pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre‐industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
(Paris Agreement, 2015, p. 3)
The 2 °C goal was initially adopted in the Copenhagen Report issued by the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2009 (UNFCCC, 2009). At the 16th COP in Cancun in 2010, the parties recognized the need to consider endorsement of a 1.5 °C target as a long‐term, alternative goa (UNFCCC, 2011).
At the core of the Paris Agreement lie the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), national plans detailing climate‐related targets, policies, and accountability assessment mechanisms that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help countries pursue integrated solutions that combine climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. NDCs are submitted to the UNFCCC every 5 years, with the next round of NDCs scheduled for 2025. Although implemented separately, there is growing recognition of the linkages between NDCs and SDGs and of the critical opportunity to integrate poverty reduction with sustainable growth, climate action, and enhanced resilience to climate change. As highlighted in a 2018 publication by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), the alignment of NDCs with the SDGs is imperative for countries to maximize efficiency, increase technical capacity, enhance synergies, and align financial resources to amplify progress across the two policy agendas.
EO derived from satellite, airborne, in‐situ platforms, and citizen observatories provide powerful tools for understanding the past and current conditions of Earth as an integrated system, and the interplay among its various components. Systematic observations of Earth's climate and model outputs contribute to NDC assessment by helping governments develop and report on estimates of greenhouse gas sources and sinks. Furthermore, EO and derived information support adaptation efforts at different spatial and temporal scales through the monitoring of, and systematic provision of input on, Earth's weather, climate, land, oceans, ecosystems, and natural hazards and disasters.
The need for global climate‐related information has been increasing since the 1988 establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a UN body that provides regular assessments of the science that relates to climate change. To promote continuous availability of climate‐related observations for all end‐users (including governments, nongovernmental organizations, international agencies, private sector, and civil society) the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2014), and the International Council for Science (ICSU) established the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) in 1992. GCOS has been working closely with the global EO community and its coordinating bodies in support of national, regional, and global efforts to improve global observation systems and foster international coordination, with the objective to amplify adaptive capabilities to respond to climate change impacts.
1.5. THE GROUP ON EARTH OBSERVATIONS (GEO)
The need for strengthened cooperation and coordination among global observing systems and research programs was widely recognized at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, 2002. Subsequent Earth observation summits in Washington, D.C., 2003, and Tokyo, 2004, underscored the importance of comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained Earth observations, exchanged fully and openly, as a basis for informed decision making. To deliver those observations, summit participants called for the establishment of a “system of systems” approach built on existing systems.
The political will and commitment demonstrated at these summits, and confirmed by the G8 endorsement of strengthened international cooperation on global observation of the environment (G8 Research Group., 2004), culminated at the Third Earth Observation Summit in Brussels, 2005, when GEO was formally launched as a partnership of member governments and participating organizations working together to implement the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). GEOSS aimed to deliver the data and information necessary to qualitatively improve our understanding of the Earth system and strengthen global policy and decision‐making efforts that promote the environment, human health, safety, and welfare. In particular, GEO's initial 10 year implementation plan (2005–2015) foresaw GEOSS as a step toward addressing the challenges articulated by the United Nations MDGs, as well as the 2002 WSSD and implementation of other international environmental treaty obligations.
GEO also promotes the benefits of GEOSS by enhancing capacity, engaging globally with a broad range of user communities, and providing EO data and information to yield knowledge advancements and societal benefits across a wide range of areas. GEO affirmed political support for full and open access to EO data and information via the Cape Town Declaration (2007), which called for implementation of the GEOSS Data Sharing Principles and improvements in interoperability of data systems. GEO's Beijing Declaration (2010) urged governments to take the measures necessary to sustain and enhance both in situ and space‐based observation systems. In 2014, GEO renewed its mandate for another decade with the Geneva Declaration (2014). This document also called for strengthening engagement with developing countries and broadening collaboration with diverse stakeholders, including nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations and the private sector, while taking into account commitments to U.N. sustainable development themes.
With the endorsement of the GEO Strategic Plan 2016–2025: Implementing GEOSS (Strategic Plan) at the Mexico City Ministerial (2015), the threads of support for sustainable development continued to be woven into the fabric of GEO's existence. The strategic plan references historical events that have transpired since the first decade of GEO's existence, including the advent of the U.N. SDGs as a response to mounting global societal challenges. Since the SDGs contain quantifiable targets and metrics (indicators) to serve as benchmarks against which progress toward SDG achievement may be ascertained, the strategic plan specifically calls for the provision of open, timely, and reliable EO data and information to supplement statistical analyses used in assessing that progress.
