IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i4p1394-d1586709.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building a Methodological Reference Framework for Quantifying Tropical Deforestation with Remote Sensing

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Isabel Fernández-Montes de Oca

    (Departamento de Zoología, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
    Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza A.C., Ciudad de México 03900, Mexico
    Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de Información Geoespacial, Ciudad de México 14240, Mexico)

  • Adrián Ghilardi

    (Centro de Investigaciones en Geografia Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190, Mexico)

  • Edith Kauffer

    (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS)-Sureste, San Cristobal de las Casa 29247, Mexico)

  • Jean Francois Mas

    (Centro de Investigaciones en Geografia Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190, Mexico)

  • Víctor Sánchez-Cordero

    (Departamento de Zoología, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico)

  • José Alberto Gallardo-Cruz

    (Centro Transdisciplinar Universitario para la Sustentabilidad, Universidad Iberoamericana, Ciudad de México 01219, Mexico)

Abstract

Deforestation is a major threat to the sustainability of natural resources. Thus, adequate estimates of deforestation are crucial for evaluating how sustainable programs are implemented. Still, there is controversy in estimating deforestation, as different estimates often produce contrasting or even conflicting results. It is known that variation in estimates depends on a wide diversity of variables that modify the methods for measuring deforestation, such as scale, types and complexity of vegetation, the definition used, and available inputs of information. This study developed a methodological tool to select the most suitable remote sensing method to measure deforestation in tropical forests. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications quantifying deforestation with remote sensing and field data. The information was analyzed and synthesized to build a methodological framework of reference. The methodological and descriptive information of the selected publications served to construct four decision rules (excluding factors, classifier options, elements for choosing a classification, and additional information) for selecting a method for quantifying deforestation. We tested the functionality of this methodological framework of reference by quantifying the deforestation of tropical rainforests in southern Mexico. Based on the decision rules of the framework, two deforestation quantification classifiers were used in the study area (Maximum likelihood and spectral angle mapper (SAM)). We observed that Maximum likelihood had higher values of accuracy than SAM, although both values of accuracy were acceptable. This framework facilitates the selection of remote sensing methods for measuring deforestation by considering the characteristics of each study area and the available inputs. The use of this framework reduced the uncertainty in the estimates of deforestation by controlling a greater number of variables and provided a robust approach for adequately implementing sustainable programs in these threatened rainforests.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Isabel Fernández-Montes de Oca & Adrián Ghilardi & Edith Kauffer & Jean Francois Mas & Víctor Sánchez-Cordero & José Alberto Gallardo-Cruz, 2025. "Building a Methodological Reference Framework for Quantifying Tropical Deforestation with Remote Sensing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:4:p:1394-:d:1586709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/4/1394/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/4/1394/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stibniati Atmadja & Louis Verchot, 2012. "A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 311-336, March.
    2. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kuralbayeva, Karlygash, 2021. "Forest carbon offsets over a smart ledger," SocArXiv hxtkg, Center for Open Science.
    2. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Bård Harstad & Torben K. Mideksa, 2017. "Conservation Contracts and Political Regimes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(4), pages 1708-1734.
    4. Arturo Sanchez-Porras & María Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide & Ricardo Darío Peña-Moreno & María Laura Sampedro-Rosas & Sonia Emilia Silva-Gómez, 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential Change to the Ecosystem Service Provision Due to Industrialization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Bojie Wang & Haiping Tang & Qin Zhang & Fengqi Cui, 2020. "Exploring Connections among Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Human Well-Being in a Mountain-Basin System, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    7. Vasileios G. Iliopoulos & Dimitris Damigos, 2024. "Groundwater Ecosystem Services: Redefining and Operationalizing the Concept," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, January.
    8. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    9. Dong, Yuxiang & Liu, Song & Pei, Xinsheng & Wang, Ying, 2025. "Spatially explicit multi-objective optimization tool for green infrastructure planning based on InVEST and NSGA-II towards multifunctionality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    10. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    11. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    12. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Eduardo Blanco & Maibritt Pedersen Zari & Kalina Raskin & Philippe Clergeau, 2021. "Urban Ecosystem-Level Biomimicry and Regenerative Design: Linking Ecosystem Functioning and Urban Built Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, January.
    14. Pan, Wenqi & Kim, Man-Keun & Ning, Zhuo & Yang, Hongqiang, 2020. "Carbon leakage in energy/forest sectors and climate policy implications using meta-analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. Uehara, Takuro & Hidaka, Takeshi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Sakurai, Ryo & Cordier, Mateo, 2021. "An adaptive social-ecological system management matrix for guiding ecosystem service improvements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    16. Leijten, Floris & Sim, Sarah & King, Henry & Verburg, Peter H., 2021. "Local deforestation spillovers induced by forest moratoria: Evidence from Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Cristian Accastello & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun, 2019. "A Framework for the Integration of Nature-Based Solutions into Environmental Risk Management Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-12, January.
    18. Mayer, Andreas & Kaufmann, Lisa & Kalt, Gerald & Matej, Sarah & Theurl, Michaela C. & Morais, Tiago G. & Leip, Adrian & Erb, Karl-Heinz, 2021. "Applying the Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production framework to map provisioning ecosystem services and their relation to ecosystem functioning across the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    19. Lia Laporta & Tiago Domingos & Cristina Marta-Pedroso, 2021. "Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems Services under the Proposed MAES European Common Framework: Methodological Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-28, October.
    20. Gacutan, Jordan & Galparsoro, Ibon & Murillas-Maza, Arantza, 2019. "Towards an understanding of the spatial relationships between natural capital and maritime activities: A Bayesian Belief Network approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:4:p:1394-:d:1586709. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.