ALBERT

Description: The utility of land cover maps for natural resources management relies on knowing the uncertainty associated with each map. The continuous advances typical of remote sensing, including the increasing availability of higher spatial and temporal resolution satellite data and data analysis capabilities, have created both opportunities and challenges for improving the application of accuracy assessment. There are well established accuracy assessment methods, but their underlying assumptions have not changed much in the last couple decades. Consequently, revisiting how map error and accuracy have been performed and reported over the last two decades is timely, to highlight areas where there is scope for better utilization of emerging opportunities. We conducted a quantitative literature review on accuracy assessment practices for mapping via remote sensing classification methods, in both terrestrial and marine environments. We performed a structured search for land and benthic cover mapping, limiting our search to journals within the remote sensing field, and papers published between 1998–2017. After an initial screening process, we assembled a database of 282 papers, and extracted and standardized information on various components of their reported accuracy assessments. We discovered that only 56% of the papers explicitly included an error matrix, and a very limited number (14%) reported overall accuracy with confidence intervals. The use of kappa continues to be standard practice, being reported in 50.4% of the literature published on or after 2012. Reference datasets used for validation were collected using a probability sampling design in 54% of the papers. For approximately 11% of the studies, the sampling design used could not be determined. No association was found between classification complexity (i.e. number of classes) and measured accuracy, independent from the size of the study area. Overall, only 32% of papers included an accuracy assessment that could be considered reproducible; that is, they included a probability-based sampling scheme to collect the reference dataset, a complete error matrix, and provided sufficient characterization of the reference datasets and sampling unit. Our findings indicate that considerable work remains to identify and adopt more statistically rigorous accuracy assessment practices to achieve transparent and comparable land and benthic cover maps.

Description: Increasing global energy demands have led to the ongoing intensification of hydrocarbon extraction from marine areas. Hydrocarbon extractive activities pose threats to native marine biodiversity, such as noise, light, and chemical pollution, physical changes to the sea floor, invasive species, and greenhouse gas emissions. Here, we assessed at a global scale the spatial overlap between offshore hydrocarbon activities and marine biodiversity (〉25,000 species, nine major ecosystems, and marine protected areas), and quantify the changes over time. We discovered that two‐thirds of global offshore hydrocarbon activities occur in areas within the top 10% for species richness, range rarity, and proportional range rarity values globally. Thus, while hydrocarbon activities are undertaken in less than one percent of the ocean's area, they overlap with approximately 85% of all assessed species. Of conservation concern, 4% of species with the largest proportion of their range overlapping hydrocarbon activities are range restricted, potentially increasing their vulnerability to localized threats such as oil spills. While hydrocarbon activities have extended to greater depths since the mid‐1990s, we found that the largest overlap is with coastal ecosystems, particularly estuaries, saltmarshes, and mangroves. Furthermore, in most countries where offshore hydrocarbon exploration licensing blocks have been delineated, they do not overlap with marine protected areas (MPAs). Although this is positive in principle, many countries have far more licensing block areas than protected areas, and in some instances, MPA coverage is minimal. These findings suggest the need for marine spatial prioritisation to help limit future spatial overlap between marine conservation priorities and hydrocarbon activities. Such prioritisation can be informed by the spatial and quantitative baseline information provided here. In increasingly shared seascapes, prioritising management actions that set both conservation and development targets could help minimize further declines of biodiversity and environmental changes at a global scale. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Description: Increasing global energy demands have led to the ongoing intensification of hydrocarbon extraction from marine areas. Hydrocarbon extractive activities pose threats to native marine biodiversity, such as noise, light, and chemical pollution, physical changes to the sea floor, invasive species, and greenhouse gas emissions. Here, we assessed at a global scale the spatial overlap between offshore hydrocarbon activities and marine biodiversity (〉25,000 species, nine major ecosystems, and marine protected areas), and quantify the changes over time. We discovered that two-thirds of global offshore hydrocarbon activities occur in areas within the top 10% for species richness, range rarity, and proportional range rarity values globally. Thus, while hydrocarbon activities are undertaken in less than one percent of the ocean's area, they overlap with approximately 85% of all assessed species. Of conservation concern, 4% of species with the largest proportion of their range overlapping hydrocarbon activities are range restricted, potentially increasing their vulnerability to localized threats such as oil spills. While hydrocarbon activities have extended to greater depths since the mid-1990s, we found that the largest overlap is with coastal ecosystems, particularly estuaries, saltmarshes and mangroves. Furthermore, in most countries where offshore hydrocarbon exploration licensing blocks have been delineated, they do not overlap with marine protected areas (MPAs). Although this is positive in principle, many countries have far more licensing block areas than protected areas, and in some instances, MPA coverage is minimal. These findings suggest the need for marine spatial prioritization to help limit future spatial overlap between marine conservation priorities and hydrocarbon activities. Such prioritization can be informed by the spatial and quantitative baseline information provided here. In increasingly shared seascapes, prioritizing management actions that set both conservation and development targets could help minimize further declines of biodiversity and environmental changes at a global scale.