Mapping for coral reef conservation: Comparing the value of participatory and remote sensing approaches

Selgrath, Jennifer C., Roelfsema, Chris, Gergel, Sarah E. and Vincent, Amanda C. J. (2016) Mapping for coral reef conservation: Comparing the value of participatory and remote sensing approaches. Ecosphere, 7 5: e01325.1-e01325.17. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1325

Related Publications and Datasets
Author Selgrath, Jennifer C.
Roelfsema, Chris
Gergel, Sarah E.
Vincent, Amanda C. J.
Title Mapping for coral reef conservation: Comparing the value of participatory and remote sensing approaches
Journal name Ecosphere   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 2150-8925
Publication date 2016-05
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1002/ecs2.1325
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 7
Issue 5
Start page e01325.1
End page e01325.17
Total pages 17
Place of publication Washington DC, United States
Publisher Ecological Society of America
Collection year 2017
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Detailed habitat maps are critical for conservation planning, yet for many coastal habitats only coarse-resolution maps are available. As the logistic and technological constraints of habitat mapping become increasingly tractable, habitat map comparisons are warranted. Here we compare two mapping approaches: local environmental knowledge (LEK) obtained from interviews; and remote sensing analysis (RS) of high spatial resolution satellite imagery (2.0 m pixel) using object-based image analysis. For a coral reef ecosystem, we compare the accuracy of these two approaches for mapping shallow seafloor habitats and contrast their characterization of habitat area and seascape connectivity. We also explore several implications for conservation planning. When evaluated using independent ground verification data, LEK-derived maps achieved a lower overall accuracy than RS-derived maps (LEK: 66%; RS: 76%). A comparison of mapped habitats found low overall agreement between LEK and RS maps. The RS map identified 5.4 times more habitat edges (the border between adjacent habitat classes) and 3.7–6.4 times greater seascape connectivity. Since the spatial arrangement of habitats affects many species (e.g., movement, predation risk), such discrepancies in landscape metrics are important to consider in conservation planning. Our results help identify strengths and weakness of both mapping approaches for conservation planning. Because RS provided a more accurate estimate of habitat distributions, it would be better for conservation planning for species sensitive to fine-spatial scale seascape patterns (e.g., habitat edges), whereas LEK is more cost effective and appropriate for mapping coarse habitat patterns. Goals for maps used in conservation should be identified early in their development.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management Publications
HERDC Pre-Audit
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 21 Jun 2016, 13:20:05 EST by Ms Kate Rowe on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)