Members of the Geo4NAPs team – Allison Lassiter, Tristan Grupp, and David Stevens – attended the National Adaptation Planning Expo in Santiago, Chile in March 2023.
Workshop on Remote Sensing Indicators for Adaptation
At the Expo, the Geo4NAPs team and members of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) led a workshop on measuring adaptation with remote sensing earth observation indicators. We asked national adaptation planning experts their thoughts on which remotely sensed indicators are the most important for measuring adaptation to climate change. We also asked over what geography and time scale would be the best for tracking each one.
We presented the following indicators: surface water greenness, wetland area, forested area patch size, built areas within the floodplain, roads within the floodplain, the share of paved roads, road access, electricity access, inundated (flooded) land area, forested area, built area (buildings, roads), soil moisture, crop productivity, number of crops grown per year, cropland area, snow/ice area, groundwater availability, and surface water area.
This plot shows the number of votes indicators received from the expert audience, the members of the LEG, and the other attendees of the NAP Expo.
Overall, few indicators received high support. This plot shows a general interest in many of the indicators.
Spatial and Temporal Aggegrations of the Indicators
* indicates an even split of support for the aggregations listed
The majority of respondents preferred district spatial aggregation. The preferred temporal aggregation varied significantly.
It is important to note that while the district is preferred, the support responses did not exceed four for these indicators.
Discussions and Feedback
Participants emphasized the importance of ground-truthing adaptation and incorporating local knowledge, particularly into broad-scale models.
Spatial aggregations need to match measurements. For example, river basins/watersheds should be the spatial aggregation for fluvial floods or water quality issues.
Can we measure adaptation without reference to a disaster – why wait for damages? Can we course-correct before a disaster?
Aggregations can be dynamic. The analysis can be performed on a pixel-by-pixel basis and then aggregated up to geographies flexibly depending on the research question.
How can we link adaptation action and outcomes causally?
Suggested Indicators
The respondents had the opportunity to suggest their own indicators as well. The suggested indicators demonstrate the practitioner’s interest in social well-being and vulnerability, desertification and land degradation, coastal change and erosion, forest fire risk, air quality, water, and the health of rangelands.
Social well-being and vulnerability: household data, poverty level, non-economic assets (losses/damages), social aspects such as social mobility and education, number of health facilities per 10,000 inhabitants, disaster risk governance, urban heat islands, population density, spatialized Multidimensional poverty indexes, indicators for vulnerability
Desertification and land degradation: desertification (2), amount of land restored, dune dynamics, degraded land
Forest fire risk: burnt area, fires, wildfires
Coast change and erosion: coastal erosion, shoreline dynamics, ocean/sea pollution, coastal area,
Air quality: level of atmospheric contamination, pollution / airborne or waterborne pollutants, coverage of area susceptible to airborne diseases
Water: salinization of water, water uses, gray infrastructure, riparian area, pollution / airborne or waterborne pollutants, water surface levels, ocean/sea pollution, reservoir area, droughts, flood risk, and rainfall (2)
Rangeland health: livestock, rangelands
Other: NDVI, temperature over time, mangrove cover, adaptation infrastructure, infrastructure such as ports and airports
We look forward to exploring these suggestions.
