Page tree

This section describes the methodologies used to develop the forest ecosystem condition accounts



Table of Contents


The Ecosystem Conditions accounts are composed of 3 main outputs:

  • Variable (descriptor) = the original ecological measurement (raw variable) used to study a certain aspect of an ecosystem condition;
  • Indicator = the rescaled ecological measurement (raw variable) to allow a consistent representation of the dimensions of the conditions captured in the variable. Reference values are used to determine good and bad values for a particular variable in the same type of forest (aka forest with similar characteristics), for the sake of comparing those results against other dimensions of condition in the same type of forest, or against results for the same variable in a different area.
  • Index = the composite weighted average of a set of indicators, whose goal is to combine different information from several variables into a unique figure, representative of the overall condition of that type of forest in the area under analysis. 

Break-down (categorization) of the results by European Forest

In this analysis, being forests the main objective of this study, the conditions of forests are disaggregated into the classes of forests obtained by combining the information described in this chapter of the guide.

Forest types

European forests have been initially categorized based on their landcover forest class, as per the Corine dataset, which distinguishes 4 types of forest:

  1. Broad-leave forest (311) - https://land.copernicus.eu/content/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-311.html
  2. Coniferous forest (312) - https://land.copernicus.eu/content/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-312.html
  3. Mixed forest (313) - https://land.copernicus.eu/content/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-313.html
  4. Transitional woodland & shrub (324) - https://land.copernicus.eu/content/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-324.html

Bioregion zones

Such categories of forest were also combined with the information on the European bioregion zones, used to define 11 bioregions over:

  1. Alpine,
  2. Arctic,
  3. Atlantic,
  4. Black Sea,
  5. Boreal,
  6. Continental,
  7. Macaronesian,
  8. Mediterranean,
  9. Pannonian,
  10. Steppic regions
  11. Alpine (Scandinavia)


The Scandinavian Alpine zone was differentiated from the rest of the Alpine bioregion for its characteristics and covers the forest in the Scandinavian mountains on the border between Norway and Sweden.

The combination of landcover forests and bioregions results in 44 forest types, following the definition of Maes, J., Bruzón, A.G., Barredo, J.I. et al. Accounting for forest conditions in Europe based on an international statistical standard. Nat Commun 14, 3723 (2023).- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39434-0

The following datasets were used to obtain this information:

Forest ecosystem condition variables

Currently 13 variable accounts can be generated in the application.
These are ordered by their ECT classification:

  1. A1.1 Normalized Difference Water Index

  2. A2.1 Soil Organic Carbon

  3. B1.1 Threatened Forest Bird Species Diversity

  4. B2.1 Above-ground Biomass

  5. B2.2 Leaf Area Index
  6. B2.3 Canopy Cover Percentage (Tree Cover Density)

  7. B3.1 Net Primary Production

  8. B3.2 Fraction of Green Vegetation Cover (FCOVER)
  9. B3.4 Drought Severity
  10. B3.5 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

  11. C1.1 Forest Connectivity

  12. C1.2 Landscape Naturalness

  13. C1.3 Forest Fragmentation

The table below summarizes all the ecosystem condition metrics considered in the development of the Forest Conditions Accounts

The full list is still under development

Ecosystem Typology GroupEcosystem Typology ClassTypology class descriptionVariable

Link to dataset or DOI  

Spatial Resolution 

Spatial Extent 

Temporal coverage  

Applied algorithm 

A. Abiotic ecosystem characteristics

A.1 Physical state

Physical descriptors of the abiotic components of the ecosystem (e.g. Soil structure, impervious surface, water availability)

A1.1 Normalized Difference Water Index

GEE Landsat 7 Collection 1 Tier 1 32-Day NDWI Composite 

GEE Landsat 8 Collection 1 Tier 1 32-Day NDWI Composite 

30m 

Global 

2000-2021 

Aggregation to three-annual average; harmonization of Landsat 7 & 8 collections; resampling if needed 

A.2 Chemical state

Chemical composition of the abiotic ecosystem compartments (e.g. Soil nutrient concentration, air and water quality)


A2.1 Soil Organic Carbon

2003 OCTOP: Topsoil Organic Carbon Content for Europe - Organic carbon content in the first 30 cm of soil 

1km 

Europe 

2003 

OCTOP dataset was set for period 2000-2013 and LUCAS dataset used from 2014 onwards; resampling if needed 

2014 LUCAS: Topsoil Soil Organic Carbon (LUCAS) for EU25 - Organic carbon content in the first 30 cm of soil 

500m 

Europe 

2014 

B. Biotic ecosystem characteristics

B.1 Compositional state

Composition/diversity of the ecological communities at a given location and time (e.g. Presence/abundance of key species, species richness, genetic diversity, presence of threatened species, diversity/abundance of relevant species groups)

B1.1 Threatened Forest Bird Species Diversity

Population trend of bird species: datasets from Article 12, Birds Directive 2009/147/EC reporting (2008-2012) 

5km 

Europe 

2000 and 2018 

Usage of original dataset provided by Maes et al. (2023); resampling if needed 

B.2 Structural state

Aggregate properties (e.g. mass, density) of the whole ecosystem or its main biotic components (e.g. Total biomass, canopy coverage, annual maximum NDVI, Vegetation density, habitat structure, food chain and trophic levels)


B2.1 Above-ground biomass

ESA’s Climate Change Initiative Biomass 

ESA forest carbon monitoring 

100m 

Global 

2010, 2017-2020, 2021 

ESA CCI biomass dataset was used for period 2000-2020 and ESA FCM dataset for 2021 onwards; resampling if needed 

ESA forest carbon monitoring 

20m 

Europe 

2020, 2021 

AGB selection; resampling if needed 

B2.2 Leaf Area Index

Copernicus leaf area index 

300m 

Global 

2015 to present 

Harmonization of 300m and 1km datasets; aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

1km 

Global 

1999 to 2014 

Terrascope Sentinel-2 Leaf Area Index 

10m 

Europe 

2016 to present 

This LAI is derived directly from ESA L2A products; applied cloud-screening; LAI generation; aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

B2.3 Plant Phenology Index (PPI) 

Copernicus Plant Phenology Index Seasonal Trajectories 

10m 

EUROPE 

2017 to present 

Aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

B2.4 Canopy Cover Percentage (Tree cover density)
Copernicus HRL tree cover density layer

It offers high-resolution information on the percentage of tree cover in a given area
100mEurope2012, 2015, 2018Year 2012 was used for period 2000-2014; year 2015 for period 2015-2017; year 2018 for 2018 onwards; resampling if needed
B.3 Functional state

Summary statistics (e.g. frequency, intensity) of the biological, chemical, and physical interactions between the main ecosystem compartments (e.g. Primary productivity, community age, distribution frequency, decomposition processes)






B3.1 Net Primary Production

Copernicus Dry Matter Productivity and Net Primary Production 

300m 

Global 

2015 to present 

Harmonization of 300m and 1km datasets; aggregation to annual sum; resampling if needed; transfer from GDMP to NPP 

1km 

Global 

1999 to 2014 

B3.2 Fraction of Green Vegetation Cover (FCOVER) 

 

Copernicus Fraction of green Vegetation Cover 

300m 

Global 

2015 to present 

Harmonization of 300m and 1km datasets; aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

1km 

Global 

1999 to 2014 

Terrascope Sentinel-2 Fraction of Vegetaion Cover 

 

10m 

Europe 

2016 to present 

This FCOVER is derived directly from ESA L2A products; applied cloud-screening; FCOVER generation; aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

B3.3 Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetic Active Radiation (FAPAR) 

Terrascope Sentinel-2 FAPAR 

 

10m 

Europe 

2016 to present 

This FAPAR is derived directly from ESA L2A products; applied cloud-screening; FAPAR generation; aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

B3.4 Drought severity

European Drought Observatory - Drought Indicator v3 

dataset download. 2012 - 2023 

documentation 

5 km  

Europe 

2012-2024 

Transfer from categorical to quantitative unit; aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

Combined drought indicator (v3) - A combination of spatial patterns of precipitation, soil moisture, and greenness vegetation anomalies, the CDI identifies areas at risk of agricultural drought. 

dataset viewer

dataset download. 2012 - 2023

documentation

5 km Europe10 day observations
2012-2023

B3.4 Drought severity (discarted)
 

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/drought/#global

Self-calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI): The scPDSI metric was introduced by Wells et al. (2004), who gave detailed information about its calculation. The scPDSI is a variant of the original PDSI of Palmer (1965), with the aim to make results from different climate regimes more comparable. As with the PDSI, the scPDSI is calculated from a time series of precipitation and temperature, together with fixed parameters related to the soil/surface characteristics at each location.

0,5 degreeGlobalAnnual / 1998 to 2018 
B3.5 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

Copernicus Normalized Difference Vegetation Index 

 

300m 

Global 

2021 onwards 

Harmonization of 300m and 1km datasets; aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

1km 

Global 

2000 to 2020 

Terrascope Sentinel-2 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index 

 

10m 

Europe 

2016 to present 

This NDVI is derived directly from ESA L2A products; applied cloud-screening; NDVI generation; aggregation to annual average; resampling if needed 

B3.6 Burned severity (discarted)

MOSEV: A global burn severity database from MODIS (2000-2020)

MOSEV data

Global Patterns and Dynamics of Burned Area and Burn Severity (developed from MOSEV data)

The variable is a result of the reprocessing of the relativized version of the Normalized Burn Ratio (RdNBR) spectral index. The 8-daily values of the original dataset, RdNBR, were converted into a burn severity category (non-burnt, low, moderate-low, moderate-high, high) and annualized by selecting the most represented category over the period observed.

500mglobalAnnual
2000-2020

B3.7 Green index 
Might be added later in the project---
B3.8 Fire occurrence
Might be added later in the project---

C. Landscape level characteristics

C.1 Landscape and seascape at coarse scale


Metrics describing mosaics of ecosystem types at coarse (such as landscape and seascape) spatial scale (e.g. Landscape diversity, connectivity, fragmentation, ecosystem type mosaics)

C1.1 Forest Connectivity

Generated using GUIDOS toolbox and Corine landcover dataset  

EC CORINE landcover 

Methodology 

100m 

Europe 

2000, 2006, 2012, 2018 

Selected CORINE LC classes were processed with the GUIDOS toolbox algorithm for connectivity 

Generated using GUIDOS toolbox and Copernicus tree-cover density dataset

Copernicus high resolution tree cover density layers

Methodology 



 

10m -20m

Europe

2012 , 2015, 2018 (central year of the 3-yearly average)

Tree-cover density dataset processed with the GUIDOS toolbox algorithm for connectivity 

C1.1 Forest Connectivity (under development)

Generated using GUIDOS toolbox and tree-cover density dataset

Copernicus high resolution tree cover density

Methodology 

 

10m

Europe

2010, 2015

Tree-cover density dataset processed with the GUIDOS toolbox algorithm for connectivity 

C1.2 Landscape Naturalness

Generated using GUIDOS toolbox and Corine landcover dataset 

EC CORINE landcover 

Methodology 

100m 

Europe 

2000, 2006, 2012, 2018 

Selected CORINE LC classes were processed with the GUIDOS toolbox algorithm for naturalness 

C1.1 Forest Fragmentation

Relative Magnitude of Fragmentation (RMF) 

Data: netCDF (12.57GB) 

300m 

Global 

1992-2020 

 

Forest ecosystem condition indicators

Each variable is scaled between 0 and 1, with values getting closer to 1 as the forest conditions improve.
This allows each indicator to represent consistently the information coming from the variables, which in their original values have different ranges but also different interpretations of such values, and not always higher values are associated with better conditions (e.g. if we look at variables like Drought Severity or Forest Fragmentation, the higher the value, the worse the conditions of the forests). 

There is currently an indicator for each variable computed in the application.
These are ordered by their ECT classification:

  1. A1.1 Normalized Difference Water Index

  2. A2.1 Soil Organic Carbon

  3. B1.1 Threatened Forest Bird Species Diversity

  4. B2.1 Above-ground Biomass

  5. B2.2 Leaf Area Index
  6. B2.3 Canopy Cover Percentage (Tree Cover Density)

  7. B3.1 Net Primary Production

  8. B3.2 Fraction of Green Vegetation Cover (FCOVER)
  9. B3.4 Drought Severity
  10. B3.5 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

  11. C1.1 Forest Connectivity

  12. C1.2 Landscape Naturalness

  13. C1.3 Forest Fragmentation


There are two methodologies adopted to define the Condition Index Accounts, both follow the theoretical framework developed in the scientific publication Maes, J., Bruzón, A.G., Barredo, J.I. et al. Accounting for forest condition in Europe based on an international statistical standard. Nat Commun 14, 3723 (2023), here in after referred to as the Nature Communication method. The differences in their implementation (and their reasons) are fully documented in this guide.


Reference areas representing healthy forests

These areas are used to identify forests considered in good health, to define the upper reference values of that variable. Forests considered in good condition (the upper reference areas) must meet the two following criteria:

  • being primary forest, alias forests where the signs of human impacts, if any, are strongly blurred due to decades without forest management or
  • being protected areas (from before the year 2000) and highly tree-covered throughout the time series (areas with a tree-covered density loss equal to or higher than 5% are excluded).

Such criteria are observed based on the information of the following datasets:

Results are obtained by combining the following inputs by using, as consistently as possible, the year 2000 as the reference year, except for the information on the Tree-cover density, whose earliest observation is in the year 2012.

Whenever a forest fails to meet any of the listed criteria, it is not considered an area of reference for good condition

Primary forest in the PeopleEA approach:

Primary forests were identified by taking:

  • the polygons of primary forests,
  • the points of primary forests and buffer to 200m radius.

Primary forest extents match roughly with the Maes et al. figures (Supplementary Table 8)

 

Protected Area in the PeopleEA approach:

The Protected Areas that have been protected areas from before the year 2000 and which don't exhibit tree-cover loss higher than 5% were considered for this analysis.
The c
ategories of protected areas considered were:

  1. Strict Nature Reserves 1a,
  2. Wilderness or wildlands 1b, and
  3.  National parks 2.

In the Maes approach, depending on the bioregion analysed, different categories of Protected Areas were selected.
The selection of the Categories 1a, 1b & 2 was the combination that matched more closely the Maes et al. figures (Supplementary Table 8)

Healthy reference areas roughly match, but there are significant differences (>5%) for some European forest categories.
The deviations by forest type and by bioregion are detailed in the tables above (ATBD and Maes et al. 2023 Supplementary tables).


Reference values: upper and lower thresholds

  • The upper (healthier conditions) reference threshold was set at the 98th percentile value observed in the reference healthy areas, for each type of forest, for each variable. 
  • The lower (worse conditions) reference threshold was set at the 2nd percentile value observed in the rest of the forest area
    (Total forest area - healthy reference area).
  •  The percentile might be inverted in case the healthier conditions correspond to lower values.

Rescaling of the variables

The percentile computed define the thresholds used to rescale the observed variables values into indicators ranging from 0 to 1.  

 


Xi = (Xobserved - XLowerReference) / (XUpperReference - XLowerReference)


Forest ecosystem condition indices

The Forest Condition Index quantifies forest health by summarizing the information of several indicator accounts, each representing a different aspect of the forest conditions, thus is computed by taking into account the several dimensions represented by each metric (raw variable).
The indicators composing the index aim to represent comprehensively all the components of ecosystems (abiotic, biotic and landscape). The index is usually composed of a single indicator for each Ecosystem Typology Class (ETC), since the variables belonging to the same ETC are usually highly correlated. The indicators are selected considering their relevance, their direct relationship to forest conditions and the availability of data for their measurement.

Forest Condition Index in the People EA methodology

The index built in the People EA project is the result of the weighted average of these indicators:

  • the Net Difference Water Index (NDWI),
  • Soil Organic Carbon (SOC),
  • Threatened forest bird species diversity (TFBSD),
  • Above-Ground Biomass (AGB),
  • Net Primary Production (NPP)
  • and Forest connectivity (FC).

The weights for indicator accounts are determined according to:

  • their spatial resolution (i.e. the size of the smallest feature detected by a satellite sensor or displayed in a satellite image, usually expressed as a single value measuring the length of one side of a square),
  • temporal resolution (i.e. the total amount of years in a dataset),
  • temporal frequency (i.e. the availability of temporal observations over the same period) and
  • dataset quality (referring to the proximity of the latest year to the present).

In particular, indicator accounts are ranked according to each of these categories. Larger values of these criteria are associated with a better representation of the ecological conditions and, rank in a higher position. The relative sum of the indicator accounts positions results in their index weight. When data from more than one indicator is considered equal in one particular aspect, each indicator is attributed to the average of the positions they would represent. For example, if three indicator accounts should be ranked 7, they will be assigned 6 since it is the average of the positions these variables represent (5th, 6th and 7th). Ranking and weights attributed to indicator accounts are detailed in the table below:


The index has been designed to take into account one indicator for each Ecosystem Typology Class.

ETC class

Raw Variable

Spatial resolution

Temporal resolution

Temporal frequency

Dataset quality

Total

Final Weight 

1A1Net Difference Water Index5665.522.50.27
2A2Soil Organic Carbon211260.07
3B1Threatened Forest Bird Species Diversity13.5318.50.10
4B2Above-ground Biomass53.53415.50.18
5B3Net Primary Production3555.518.50.22
6C1Forest Connectivity5233130.16
Total2121212184

1.0

The table ranks each variable considering the aspects in the column headers.

  • Spatial Resolution describes the size of the smallest feature that can be detected by a satellite sensor or displayed in a satellite image. It is usually presented as a single value representing the length of one side of a square,
  • Temporal resolution refers to the total amount of years in the dataset,
  • Temporal frequency considers the availability of temporal observation over the same period. While all variables are annualized, annual averages obtained from highly frequent observation are more accurate and thus considered better input overall.
  • Dataset quality represents the proximity of the first and latest year in the dataset, respectively, to the reference year (2000) and the present.
  • When variables are ranked the same in one criterion, they are assigned the average of the positions they would represent. For example, if there are three variables which should be ranked 7, they will be assigned 6 since it is the average of the positions these variables represent (5, 6 and 7).


Indicators weighted using an arithmetic average (PeopleEA index)

Overall condition index = 
(Net Difference Water Index x 0.24) + (Soil Organic Carbon x 0.05) + (Threatened Forest Bird Species Diversity x 0.08)+
(Above-ground Biomass x 0.15) + (Net Primary Production x 0.19) + (Forest Connectivity x 0.12)

For areas where Soil Organic Carbon is missing, because of large areas not covered by the dataset, the index is calculated by redistributing the weights:
Overall condition index =
(Net Difference Water Index x 0.31) + (Threatened Forest Bird Species Diversity x 0.11)+
(Above-ground Biomass x 0.19) + (Net Primary Production x 0.24) + (Forest Connectivity x 0.16)


Indicators weighted using a geometric average (Euclidean distance)

The formulation of the resulting Forest Condition Index is the following:
Forest Condition Index = sqrt(
(NDWI^2 x 0.27) + (SOC^2 x 0.07) + (TBFSD^2 x 0.10) + (AGB^2 x 0.18) + (NPP^2 x 0.22) + (FC^2 x 0.16) )

For areas where Soil Organic Carbon is missing, because of large areas not covered by the dataset, the index is calculated by redistributing the weights:
Forest Condition Index = sqrt(
(NDWI^2 x 0.31) + (TBFSD^2 x 0.11) + (AGB^2 x 0.19) + (NPP^2 x 0.24) + (FC^2 x 0.15) )


Forest Condition Index published in Nature Communications by Maes et al. (2023)   

The Forest Condition Index quantifies forest health by summarizing the information of several indicator accounts, each representing a different aspect of the forest conditions. The indicators composing the index aim to represent comprehensively all the components of ecosystems (abiotic, biotic and landscape). The index is usually composed of a single indicator for each Ecosystem Typology Class (ETC), since the variables belonging to the same ETC are usually highly correlated. The indicators are selected considering their relevance, their direct relationship to forest conditions and the availability of data for their measurement.

Specifically, the Forest Condition Index published in Nature Communications considers:

  • the Net Difference Water Index,
  • Soil Organic Carbon,
  • Threatened forest bird species diversity,
  • Tree cover density (Canopy cover),
  • Net Difference Vegetation Index (Forest productivity),
  • Forest connectivity and
  • Landscape naturalness.  

To obtain a unique assessment of the forest condition, the index uses the weighted average of indicator accounts. The weights for indicator accounts are assigned based on their capacity to represent the ecosystem structure (intrinsic relevance), the ecosystem services provided (instrumental relevance), the changes in forest condition derived from external factors (directionality meaning) and the anthropogenic repercussion (sensibility to human influence) as well as on their adequacy to the SEEA EA framework (framework adequacy). Indicators are ranked between 1 (lowest position) and 7 (highest position) for five conceptual criteria proposed to select ecosystem condition variables (SEEAEAWhiteCover2021, CzuczEtAl2021  . Better positioned indicators have a larger weight in the index, and the relative sum of the indicator positions results in their index weight. Positions and weights attributed to indicator accounts are detailed in the table below, which corresponds to Maes et al. figures (Supplementary Table 9).

ETC class

Variable

Intrinsic relevance

Instrumental relevance

Directional meaning

Sensibility to human influence

Framework conformity  

Total  

Final Weight 

1A1Net Difference Water Index14123110.08
2A2Soil Organic Carbon35315170.12
3B1Threatened Forest Bird Species Diversity73777310.22
4B2Tree Cover Density66566290.21
5B3Net Difference Vegetation Index27234180.13
6C1Forest Connectivity52452180.13
7C1Landscape Naturalness41641160.11
Total2828282828140

1.0


The formulation of the resulting Forest Condition Index is the following:
Forest Condition Index = 
(NDWI x 0.08) + (SOC x 0.12) + (TBFSD x 0.22) + (TCD x 0.21) + (NDVI x 0.13) + (FC x 0.13) + (LN x 0.11)
For areas where Soil Organic Carbon is missing, because of dataset coverage, the index is calculated by redistributing the weights:
Forest Condition Index = 
(NDWI x 0.10) + (TBFSD x 0.26) + (TCD x 0.23) + (NDVI x 0.15) + (FC x 0.14) + (LN x 0.12)

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. Might there be there a typo error for NDVI weight in the FCI equation? 0.13 instead of 0.34

  2. Hi! It's the other way around, the typo is not in the equation, but in the table. We'll fix it, thanks for spotting it!

Write a comment…