• SDSN - Greece
• Research data close
• Other research products close
• NERC Open Research Archive close

The PanGeo service has been designed with the original project aims, user requirements and technical requirements in mind. The PanGeo service will create an attributed, spatially referenced vector polygon dataset outlining all areas of ground instability for 52 European towns. INSPIRE compliant attributes will provide the reason for the instability, its area and the geologists confidence in their interpretation. The supporting Geohazard Description Document will be available as both a standalone document and the relevant section will be hyperlinked to the Ground Stability Layer polygon displayed in the portal. Along with providing a geological background to the PanGeo town the Geohazard Description will give detailed geological interpretation and evidence for the area of instability and provide information on how the instability was recognised and mapped. The PanGeo interpretation will be carried out by the National Geological Survey for the country for which the town resides. The inputs to the interpretation are; satellite radar derived data on ground motion, ground motions observed with other surveying techniques, geological data and models and ancillary data. The satellite radar derived ground motion data will be delivered to the geological surveys by the PSIPs within in the PanGeo Production Pack. Two types of ground instability will be recognised; observed and potential. Observed instabilities are those observed on ground motion data or through geological field campaigns. Potential instabilities are those areas that the geologist believes may be subject to instabilities given their knowledge of the area or the results of geological modelling. One of eighteen geohazards is assigned to each area of ground instability; geohazards are grouped into four categories for display on the portal. Once the Geological Survey has completed the GSL and GHD they will be validated by the British Geological Survey before being made available to the PanGeo portal. In the first instance the GSL will be submitted to an online validating tool which will carry out automated topological data checks of the vector data and attributes. Once passed the GSL is sent to BGS who will carry out manual checks of the GSL and GHD to ensure they meet the specifications. Once validated the Geological Survey will make the GSL and GDH available on their IT servers for harvesting by the PanGeo portal. The display of the GSL on the portal will depend on the viewing scale; at the European scale PanGeo towns will be highlighted, at the regional scale a graphic showing the number of hazards affecting an area will be displayed. At the local scale the GSL polygons will be displayed according to the geohazard category, the boundary line will distinguish potential and observed hazards. The user can also choose to integrate the GSL with the Urban Atlas; the GSL polygons will highlight those Urban Atlas land cover types affected by hazards

The PanGeo service has been designed with the original project aims, user requirements and technical requirements in mind. The PanGeo service will create an attributed, spatially referenced vector polygon dataset outlining all areas of ground instability for 52 European towns. INSPIRE compliant attributes will provide the reason for the instability, its area and the geologists confidence in their interpretation. The supporting Geohazard Description Document will be available as both a standalone document and the relevant section will be hyperlinked to the Ground Stability Layer polygon displayed in the portal. Along with providing a geological background to the PanGeo town the Geohazard Description will give detailed geological interpretation and evidence for the area of instability and provide information on how the instability was recognised and mapped. The PanGeo interpretation will be carried out by the National Geological Survey for the country for which the town resides. The inputs to the interpretation are; satellite radar derived data on ground motion, ground motions observed with other surveying techniques, geological data and models and ancillary data. The satellite radar derived ground motion data will be delivered to the geological surveys by the PSIPs within in the PanGeo Production Pack. Two types of ground instability will be recognised; observed and potential. Observed instabilities are those observed on ground motion data or through geological field campaigns. Potential instabilities are those areas that the geologist believes may be subject to instabilities given their knowledge of the area or the results of geological modelling. One of eighteen geohazards is assigned to each area of ground instability; geohazards are grouped into four categories for display on the portal. Once the Geological Survey has completed the GSL and GHD they will be validated by the British Geological Survey before being made available to the PanGeo portal. In the first instance the GSL will be submitted to an online validating tool which will carry out automated topological data checks of the vector data and attributes. Once passed the GSL is sent to BGS who will carry out manual checks of the GSL and GHD to ensure they meet the specifications. Once validated the Geological Survey will make the GSL and GDH available on their IT servers for harvesting by the PanGeo portal. The display of the GSL on the portal will depend on the viewing scale; at the European scale PanGeo towns will be highlighted, at the regional scale a graphic showing the number of hazards affecting an area will be displayed. At the local scale the GSL polygons will be displayed according to the geohazard category, the boundary line will distinguish potential and observed hazards. The user can also choose to integrate the GSL with the Urban Atlas; the GSL polygons will highlight those Urban Atlas land cover types affected by hazards

The European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE) is a European contribution on terrestrial monitoring to GEO BON, the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network. EBONE’s aims are to develop a system of biodiversity observation at regional, national and European levels by assessing existing approaches in terms of their validity and applicability starting in Europe, then expanding to regions in Africa. The objective of EBONE is to deliver: 1. A sound scientific basis for the production of statistical estimates of stock and change of key indicators; 2. The development of a system for estimating past changes and forecasting and testing policy options and management strategies for threatened ecosystems and species; 3. A proposal for a cost-effective biodiversity monitoring system. There is a consensus that Earth Observation (EO) has a role to play in monitoring biodiversity. With its capacity to observe detailed spatial patterns and variability across large areas at regular intervals, our instinct suggests that EO could deliver the type of spatial and temporal coverage that is beyond reach with in-situ efforts. Furthermore, when considering the emerging networks of in-situ observations, the prospect of enhancing the quality of the information whilst reducing cost through integration is compelling. This report gives a realistic assessment of the role of EO in biodiversity monitoring and the options for integrating in-situ observations with EO within the context of the EBONE concept (cfr. EBONE-ID1.4). The assessment is mainly based on a set of targeted pilot studies. Building on this assessment, the report then presents a series of recommendations on the best options for using EO in an effective, consistent and sustainable biodiversity monitoring scheme. The issues that we faced were many: 1. Integration can be interpreted in different ways. One possible interpretation is: the combined use of independent data sets to deliver a different but improved data set; another is: the use of one data set to complement another dataset. 2. The targeted improvement will vary with stakeholder group: some will seek for more efficiency, others for more reliable estimates (accuracy and/or precision); others for more detail in space and/or time or more of everything. 3. Integration requires a link between the datasets (EO and in-situ). The strength of the link between reflected electromagnetic radiation and the habitats and their biodiversity observed in-situ is function of many variables, for example: the spatial scale of the observations; timing of the observations; the adopted nomenclature for classification; the complexity of the landscape in terms of composition, spatial structure and the physical environment; the habitat and land cover types under consideration. 4. The type of the EO data available varies (function of e.g. budget, size and location of region, cloudiness, national and/or international investment in airborne campaigns or space technology) which determines its capability to deliver the required output. EO and in-situ could be combined in different ways, depending on the type of integration we wanted to achieve and the targeted improvement. We aimed for an improvement in accuracy (i.e. the reduction in error of our indicator estimate calculated for an environmental zone). Furthermore, EO would also provide the spatial patterns for correlated in-situ data. EBONE in its initial development, focused on three main indicators covering: (i) the extent and change of habitats of European interest in the context of a general habitat assessment; (ii) abundance and distribution of selected species (birds, butterflies and plants); and (iii) fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas. For habitat extent, we decided that it did not matter how in-situ was integrated with EO as long as we could demonstrate that acceptable accuracies could be achieved and the precision could consistently be improved. The nomenclature used to map habitats in-situ was the General Habitat Classification. We considered the following options where the EO and in-situ play different roles: using in-situ samples to re-calibrate a habitat map independently derived from EO; improving the accuracy of in-situ sampled habitat statistics, by post-stratification with correlated EO data; and using in-situ samples to train the classification of EO data into habitat types where the EO data delivers full coverage or a larger number of samples. For some of the above cases we also considered the impact that the sampling strategy employed to deliver the samples would have on the accuracy and precision achieved. Restricted access to European wide species data prevented work on the indicator ‘abundance and distribution of species’. With respect to the indicator ‘fragmentation’, we investigated ways of delivering EO derived measures of habitat patterns that are meaningful to sampled in-situ observations.

This version of the deliverable 3.1 comprises the questions that formed questionnaire that was sent to each Geological Survey. Replies to the questionnaire have been included. Subsequent analyses of the replies will be undertaken to gain user requirements to help design the PanGeo service. The questionnaire was also been designed to enable the core project partners to gain an understanding of what auxiliary information the Geological Surveys hold that can be integrated with the PSI data to produce the PanGeo Service. The questionnaire addressed 11 areas: 1. General information about the person completing the survey 2. Use of the PanGeo service 3. Information about the Geological Survey and their skills 4. Geological and geohazard issues 5. Auxiliary data and information 6. Politics 7. The PanGeo geohazard summary 8. The PanGeo portal 9. Support information for the creation of PanGeo geohazard information 10. The future of PanGeo 11. Any other information In total, twenty seven replies were received, three of which were questionnaires completed by testers from Geological Surveys.

This version of the deliverable 3.1 comprises the questions that will form the questionnaire to be sent to each Geological Survey. Answers will be analysed to gain user requirements to help design the PanGeo service. The questionnaire has also been designed to enable the core project partners to gain an understanding of what auxiliary information the Geological Surveys hold that can be integrated with the PSI data to produce the PanGeo Service. The questionnaire addresses 11 areas: 1. General information about the person completing the survey 2. Use of the PanGeo service 3. Information about the Geological Survey and their skills 4. Geological and geohazard issues 5. Auxiliary data and information 6. Politics 7. The PanGeo geohazard summary 8. The PanGeo portal 9. Support information for the creation of PanGeo geohazard information 10. The future of PanGeo 11. Any other information