Open AccessAssessing the Agreement between Deforestation Maps of Kalimantan from Various Sources
Author(s) -
Desi Suyamto,
AA Condro,
L B Prasetyo,
Yudi Setiawan,
AK Wijayanto
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
iop conference series. earth and environmental science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.179
H-Index - 26
eISSN - 1755-1307
pISSN - 1755-1315
DOI - 10.1088/1755-1315/556/1/012011
Subject(s) - deforestation (computer science) , geography , european union , rainforest , agency (philosophy) , environmental protection , environmental resource management , natural resource economics , business , ecology , environmental science , economics , international trade , philosophy , epistemology , computer science , biology , programming language
Due to its multiscale impacts, deforestation of tropical rainforests had become a global concern. A number of stakeholders comprising government, research agencies, and NGOs; ranging from local to international levels; have developed their own forest monitoring systems for detecting forest loss. However, discrepancies on deforestation reports from various producers often trigger public debates; which mostly degenerate the productivity of efforts in providing salient, legitimate and credible data on deforestation. Thus, we should reconcile the dispute by acknowledging the deforestation data from all sources. This study assessed the agreement between deforestation maps from various sources. In this case, deforestation maps of Kalimantan within 2009-2013 period from 4 sources were used; i.e. deforestation maps from European Space Agency - Climate Change Initiative (ESA-CCI), Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI), Global Forest Watch (GFW), and Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF). We found that the inter-rater agreement between deforestation maps were relatively low, as indicated by Cohen’s kappa (κ), ranging from slight (κ=0.18 between ESA-CCI and GFW) to fair (0.24 ≤ κ ≤ 0.35 for other pairs of sources); due to omission/commission disagreements (47.82% to 87.58%). It suggests that in order to reconcile the dispute, we should remove the omission disagreement by forming the union of deforestation maps. The results from further analyses proved that the union of deforestation maps increased the agreement to moderate (κ=0.44 between union map and FWI) and even substantial (κ=0.79 between union map and GFW). Findings of this study should support the implementation of one map policy.