Compiling a high-resolution country-level ecosystem map to support environmental policy: methodological challenges and solutions from Hungary

References

• Aggestam F, Mangalagiu D. 2020. Is sharing truly caring? Environmental data value chains and policymaking in Europe and Central Asia. Environ Sci Policy. 114:152–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold S, Kosztra B, Banko G, Smith G, Hazeu G, Bock M, Valcarcel Sanz N. 2013. The EAGLE concept—a vision of a future European Land Monitoring Framework. In: Proceedings 33th EARSeL Symposium towards Horizon. Vol. 2013. [place unknown]: Citeseer; p. 551–568.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett B, Raab C, Cawkwell F, Green S. 2016. Upland vegetation mapping using Random Forests with optical and radar satellite data. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv. 2(4):212–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blasi C, Capotorti G, Alós Ortí MM, Anzellotti I, Attorre F, Azzella MM, Carli E, Copiz R, Garfì V, Manes F, et al. 2017. Ecosystem mapping for the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy at the national level: The case of Italy. Environ Sci Policy. 78:173–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhner J, Conrad O. 2001. SAGA-GIS Module Library Documentation (v2.2.3) [Internet]; [accessed 2021 Jul 14]. http://www.saga-gis.org/saga_tool_doc/2.2.3/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Böhner J, Selige T. 2006. Spatial prediction of soil attributes using terrain analysis and climate regionalisation. In: Böhner J, McCloy KR, Strobl J, editors. SAGA - Analysis and modelling applications. Göttingen: Goettinger Geographische Abhandlungen; p. 13–28.
   Google Scholar
• Bölöni J, Molnár Z, Illyés E, Kun A. 2007. A new habitat classification and manual for standardized habitat mapping. Ann Bot. 7(0):55–76; [accessed 2020 Jul 6]. https://ojs.uniroma1.it/index.php/Annalidibotanica/article/view/9085.
   Google Scholar
• Bölöni J, Molnár Z, Kun A. 2011. Magyarország élőhelyei. A hazai vegetációtípusok leírása és határozója [Habitats of Hungary. A description of Hungarian habitats]. Vácrátót: MTA ÖBKI.
   Google Scholar
• Bray J, Curtis J. 1957. An ordination of upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr. 27(4):325–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman L. 2001. Random forests. Mach Learn. 45(1):5–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burai P, Deák B, Valkó O, Tomor T. 2015. Classification of herbaceous vegetation using airborne hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sensing. 7(2):2046–2066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, Santos-Martin F, Nedkov S, Maes J. 2018. An operational framework for integrated Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES). OE. 3(2018):e22831.
   Google Scholar
• Büttner, G. 2012. Guidelines for verification and enhancement of high resolution layers produced under GMES initial operations (GIO) Land monitoring 2011–2013. European Environment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Büttner, G. 2014. CORINE land cover and land cover change products. In: Manakos I, Braun M, editors. Land use and land cover mapping in Europe. London: Springer; p. 55–74.
   Google Scholar
• Černecký J, Gajdoš P, Špulerová J, Halada Ľ, Mederly P, Ulrych L, Ďuricová V, Švajda J, Černecká Ľ, Andráš P, et al. 2020. Ecosystems in Slovakia. J Maps. 16(2):28–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chignell SM, Luizza MW, Skach S, Young NE, Evangelista PH. 2018. An integrative modeling approach to mapping wetlands and riparian areas in a heterogeneous Rocky Mountain watershed. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv. 4(2):150–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Congalton RG. 2001. Accuracy assessment and validation of remotely sensed and other spatial information. Int J Wildland Fire. 10(4):321–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbane C, Lang S, Pipkins K, Alleaume S, Deshayes M, García Millán VE, Strasser T, Vanden Borre J, Toon S, Michael F. 2015. Remote sensing for mapping natural habitats and their conservation status – new opportunities and challenges. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 37:7–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ Change. 26:152–158..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crouzat E, Zawada M, Grigulis K, Lavorel S. 2019. Design and implementation of a national ecosystem assessment – insights from the French mountain systems’ experience. Ecosyst People. 15(1):288–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czúcz B,Kalóczkai Á,Arany I,Kelemen K,Papp J,Havadtői K,Kelemen M,Vári Á. 2018. How to design a transdisciplinary regional ecosystem service assessment: a case study from Romania, Eastern Europe. One Ecosystem. (3):e26363.
   Google Scholar
• Csonka B, Mikus G, Martinovich L, László I, Csornai G, Tikasz L, Kocsis A, Bognár E, Szekeres Á, Tóth GL, et al. 2011. Introduction of two GIS-based applications supporting area-based agricultural subsidies in Hungary (LPIS and VINGIS). In: Land quality and land use information in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union;p. 233–245.
   Google Scholar
• Davies CE, Moss D, Hill MO. 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Report to: European Environment Agency-European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity.
   Google Scholar
• Delegido J, Verrelst J, Alonso L, Moreno J. 2011. Evaluation of Sentinel-2 red-edge bands for empirical estimation of green LAI and chlorophyll content. Sensors (Basel). 11(7):7063–7081..
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diek S, Fornallaz F, Schaepman ME, De Jong R. 2017. Barest pixel composite for agricultural areas using Landsat time series. Remote Sensing. 9(12):1245..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, et al. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science. 366(6471):aax3100. 10.1126/science.aax3100
   Google Scholar
• Dong M, Bryan BA, Connor JD, Nolan M, Gao L. 2015. Land use mapping error introduces strongly-localised, scale-dependent uncertainty into land use and ecosystem services modelling. Ecosyst Serv. 15:63–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EC. 2006. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond: Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being. Brussels: Communication from the Commission of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2013. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats – EUR28. Brussels: European Commission, DG Environ. p. 144.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2019. The European Green Deal. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee and The Committee Of The Regions COM/2019/640 final; [accessed 2020 Jun 23]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2020. EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 bringing nature back into our lives. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM/2020/380 final; [accessed 2020 Jun 23]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1590574123338&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0380.
   Google Scholar
• Eionet Action Group on Land Monitoring in Europe (EAGLE) 2015–2021. [accessed 2021 Nov 15]. https://land.copernicus.eu/eagle.
   Google Scholar
• Erhard M, Banko G, Malak DA, Martin FS. 2017. 3.5. Mapping ecosystem types and conditions. In: Burkhard B, Maes J, editors. Mapping ecosystem services. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers; p. 75–81.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher JRB, Acosta EA, Dennedy‐Frank PJ, Kroeger T, Boucher TM. 2018. Impact of satellite imagery spatial resolution on land use classification accuracy and modeled water quality. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv. 4(2):137–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foody GM. 2015. Valuing map validation: the need for rigorous land cover map accuracy assessment in economic valuations of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 111:23–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser R, McLennan D, Ponomarenko S, Olthof I. 2012. Image-based predictive ecosystem mapping in Canadian arctic parks. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 14(1):129–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frélichová J, Vačkář D, Pártl A, Loučková B, Harmáčková ZV, Lorencová E. 2014. Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst Serv. 8:110–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao B. 1996. NDWI—a normalized difference water index for remote sensing of vegetation liquid water from space. Remote Sens Environ. 58(3):257–266..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giuliani G, Chatenoux B, De Bono A, Rodila D, Richard J-P, Allenbach K, Dao H, Peduzzi P. 2017. Building an earth observations data cube: lessons learned from the Swiss Data Cube (SDC) on generating Analysis Ready Data (ARD). Big Earth Data. 1(1–2):100–117.
   Google Scholar
• Grunewald K, Herold H, Marzelli S, Meinel G, Richter B, Syrbe R-U, Walz U. 2016. Assessment of ecosystem services at the national level in Germany—illustration of the concept and the development of indicators by way of the example wood provision. Ecol Indic. 70:181–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunewald K, Schweppe-Kraft B, Syrbe R-U, Meier S, Krüger T, Schorcht M, Walz U. 2020. Hierarchical classification system of Germany’s ecosystems as basis for an ecosystem accounting – methods and first results. OE. 5:e50648.
   Google Scholar
• Horváth F, Molnár Z, Bölöni J, Pataki Z, Polgár L, Révész A, Oláh K, Krasser D, Illyés E. 2008. Fact sheet of the MÉTA database 1.2. Acta Bot Hungarica. 50(Supplement 1):11–34.
   Google Scholar
• Inglada J, Vincent A, Arias M, Tardy B, Morin D, Rodes I. 2017. Operational high resolution land cover map production at the country scale using satellite image time series. Remote Sensing. 9(1):95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.
   Google Scholar
• Land Parcel Identification Scheme of Hungary (LPIS-HU) 2018. Magyar Államkincstár (Hungarian State Treasury). [accessed 2021 Nov 15]. https://mepar.hu/.
   Google Scholar
• Langanke T, Moran A, Dulleck B, Schleicher C. 2016. Copernicus land monitoring service–high resolution layer water and wetness product specifications document. Copernicus Team at EEA.
   Google Scholar
• Lecours V. 2017. On the use of maps and models in conservation and resource management (warning: results may vary). Front Mar Sci. 4; [accessed 2021 Jan 12]. 10.3389/fmars.2017.00288/full.
   Google Scholar
• Lee J-S, Pottier E, editors. 2017. Polarimetric radar imaging: from basics to applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press..
   Google Scholar
• Lucas R, Blonda P, Bunting P, Jones G, Inglada J, Arias M, Kosmidou V, Petrou ZI, Manakos I, Adamo M, et al. 2015. The Earth Observation Data for Habitat Monitoring (EODHaM) system. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 37:17–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh B, Puydarrieux P, Fiorina C, Santos F, et al. 2013. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• McFeeters SK. 1996. The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features. Int J Remote Sens. 17(7):1425–1432..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merzlyak MN, Gitelson AA, Chivkunova OB, Rakitin VY. 1999. Non-destructive optical detection of pigment changes during leaf senescence and fruit ripening. Physiol Plant. 106(1):135–141..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molnár Z, Bartha S, Seregélyes T, Illyés E, Botta-Dukát Z, Tímár G, Horváth F, Révész A, Kun A, Bölöni J, et al. 2007. A grid-based, satellite-image supported, multi-attributed vegetation mapping method (MÉTA). Folia Geobot. 42(3):225–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naszádos A, Szekeres Á, Tüske T. 2017. A MePAR felszínborítási adatának leírása. A 2015. és 2016. évi kezdő MePAR-ban szereplő felszínborítási kategóriák, valamint a felszínborítási adathoz köthető egyéb jelzések leírása [Description of the land cover data of the Hungarian LPIS]. Budapest: Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala.
   Google Scholar
• Nedkov S, Borisova B, Koulov B, Zhiyanski M, Bratanova-Doncheva S, Nikolova M, Kroumova J. 2018. Towards integrated mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in Bulgaria: the Central Balkan case study. OE. 3:e25428.
   Google Scholar
• Nowak MM, Dziób K, Ludwisiak Ł, Chmiel J. 2020. Mobile GIS applications for environmental field surveys: a state of the art. Glob Ecol Conserv. 23:e01089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palomo I, Willemen L, Drakou E, Burkhard B, Crossman N, Bellamy C, Burkhard K, Campagne CS, Dangol A, Franke J, et al. 2018. Practical solutions for bottlenecks in ecosystem services mapping. OE. 3:e20713.
   Google Scholar
• Pásztor L,Laborczi A,Takács K,Illés G,Szabó J,Szatmári G. 2020. Progress in the elaboration of GSM conform DSM products and their functional utilization in Hungary. Geoderma Regional. 21:e00269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perennou C, Guelmami A, Paganini M, Philipson P, Poulin B, Strauch A, Tottrup C, Truckenbrodt J, Geijzendorffer IR. 2018. Chapter Six - Mapping Mediterranean wetlands with remote sensing: a good-looking map is not always a good map. In: Bohan DA, Dumbrell AJ, Woodward G, Jackson M, editors. Advances in ecological research [Internet]. Vol. 58. [place unknown]: Academic Press; p. 243–277; [accessed 2020 Jun 23]; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065250417300272.
   Google Scholar
• Reschke J, Hüttich C. 2014. Continuous field mapping of Mediterranean wetlands using sub-pixel spectral signatures and multi-temporal Landsat data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 28:220–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rikimaru A, Roy PS, Miyatake S. 2002. Tropical forest cover density mapping. Trop Ecol. 43(1):39–47.
   Google Scholar
• Rocchini D, Foody GM, Nagendra H, Ricotta C, Anand M, He KS, Amici V, Kleinschmit B, Förster M, Schmidtlein S, et al. 2013. Uncertainty in ecosystem mapping by remote sensing. Comput Geosci. 50:128–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse JW, Haas RH, Scheel JA, Deering DW. 1974. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. Proceedings of the 3rd Earth Resource Technology Satellite (ERTS) Symposium, Greenbelt. Vol. 1. p. 48–62.
   Google Scholar
• Ruckelshaus MH, Jackson ST, Mooney HA, Jacobs KL, Kassam K-AS, Arroyo MTK, Báldi A, Bartuska AM, Boyd J, Joppa LN, et al. 2020. The IPBES global assessment: pathways to action. Trends Ecol Evol. 35(5):407–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuster C, Schmidt T, Conrad C, Kleinschmit B, Förster M. 2015. Grassland habitat mapping by intra-annual time series analysis – comparison of RapidEye and TerraSAR-X satellite data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 34:25–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• See L, Perger C, Hofer M, Weichselbaum J, Dresel C, Fritz S. 2015. LACO-WIKI: an open access online portal for land cover validation. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci. II-3/W5:167–171.
   Google Scholar
• Somodi I, Ewald J, Bede-Fazekas Á, Molnár Z. 2021. The relevance of the concept of potential natural vegetation in the Anthropocene. Plant Ecol Diversity. 14(1–2):13–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somodi I, Molnár Z, Czúcz B, Bede‐Fazekas Á, Bölöni J, Pásztor L, Laborczi A, Zimmermann NE. 2017. Implementation and application of multiple potential natural vegetation models – a case study of Hungary. J Veg Sci. 28(6):1260–1269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somodi I, Molnár Z, Ewald J. 2012. Towards a more transparent use of the potential natural vegetation concept – an answer to Chiarucci et al. J Veg Sci. 23(3):590–595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strand J, Soares-Filho B, Costa MH, Oliveira U, Ribeiro SC, Pires GF, Oliveira A, Rajão R, May P, van der Hoff R, et al. 2018. Spatially explicit valuation of the Brazilian Amazon Forest’s Ecosystem Services. Nat Sustain. 1(11):657–664..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strategic Assessments supporting the long term conservation of natural values of community interest as well as the national implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (2017–2021). [accessed 2021 Nov 15]. http://termeszetem.hu/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Stratoulias D, Balzter H, Sykioti O, Zlinszky A, Tóth VR. 2015. Evaluating Sentinel-2 for Lakeshore habitat mapping based on airborne hyperspectral data. Sensors (Basel)). 15(9):22956–22969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strobl P, Baumann P, Lewis A, Szantoi Z, Killough B, Purss M, Craglia M, Nativi S, Held A, Dhu T. 2017. The six faces of the data cube. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Big Data from Space (BiDS’17); Toulouse, France; p. 28–30.
   Google Scholar
• Surek G, Nádor G, Friedl Z, Gyimesi B, Rada M, Gera ÁD, Hubik I, Rotterné Kulcsár A, Török C. 2016. Application of radar and optical images to create Copernicus high resolution layers: case Studies in Hungary. In: Ouwehand L, editor. Living Planet Symposium, Proceedings of the Conference held 9–13 May 2016 in Prague, Czech Republic. ESA-SP Volume 740, ISBN: 978-92-9221-305-3, p. 177.
   Google Scholar
• Takács G, Molnár Z. 2009. National biodiversity monitoring system XI. Habitat mapping. 2nd modified ed. Budapest: Ministry of Environment and Water. p. 54.
   Google Scholar
• Thamaga KH, Dube T, Shoko C. 2021. Advances in satellite remote sensing of the wetland ecosystems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Geocarto Int. [accessed 2021 July 8]:23 p.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Ecosystem Map of Hungary. 2019. Agrárminisztérium. [accessed 2021 Nov 15]. http://alapterkep.termeszetem.hu/.
   Google Scholar
• The Ecosystem Map of Hungary – detailed methodology downloads. 2019. Agrárminisztérium. [accessed 2021 Nov 15]. http://termeszetem.hu/files/download/documents/document_img/35/?2020-01-27%2015:45:44.
   Google Scholar
• Tobisch T, Kottek P. 2013. Forestry-related databases of the Hungarian forestry directorate. National Food Chain Safety Office (NFCSO), Hungary [Internet]. [accessed 2020 Jun 23]. https://portal.nebih.gov.hu/documents/10182/862096/Forestry_related_databases.pdf/3ff92716-2301-4894-a724-72fafca9d4fc.
   Google Scholar
• Török K, Fodor L, editors. 2006. Élőhelyek, mohák és gombák. Results of the Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System. Budapest. KvVM TVH; p. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Tüxen R. 1956. Die Heutige Potentielle Natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung. Angew Pflanzensoziol. 13:4–42.
   Google Scholar
• VINGIS 2017–2021. Nemzeti Földügyi Központ. [accessed 2021 Nov 15]. https://www.vingis.hu/.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss M, Banko G. 2018. Ecosystem Type Map v3. 1 – Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystems. ETC/BD report to the EEA. Paris: European Environment Agency (EEA)—European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity.
   Google Scholar
• Zlinszky A, Mücke W, Lehner H, Briese C, Pfeifer N. 2012. Categorizing wetland vegetation by airborne laser scanning on Lake Balaton and Kis-Balaton, Hungary. Remote Sensing. 4(6):1617–1650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar