Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you(20)

Similar to Integrating local crowdsourced and remotely sensed data to characterize rangeland resource use in extensive pasturelands(20)

Advertisement

More from ILRI(20)

Recently uploaded(20)

Advertisement

Integrating local crowdsourced and remotely sensed data to characterize rangeland resource use in extensive pasturelands

  1. Integrating local crowdsourced and remotely sensed data to characterize rangeland resource use in extensive pasturelands Francesco Fava (ILRI) Nathan Jensen (ILRI) Lucas de Oto (Uni-Twente) Andrew Mude (ILRI)
  2. The Problem Complex Socio-ecological Systems In pastoral regions, household welfare and resilience is tightly tied to the availability and quality of forage resources. Remotely sensed (RS) data is currently used to map rangeland cover types and forage condition. Grazing resource use and accessibility cannot be mapped RS data, while they are critical aspects of pastoralist mobility and management decision making.
  3. The Idea  Mobile tech. are deeply penetrating even in remote areas  Pastoralists can provide critical information to understand land cover dynamics, migration patterns, and management challenges
  4. The Setup Screena Screenb Screenc Screen0 Screens1 Screen2 Screen3 Screen 4 Screen 5 Screen 6 • Dedicated smartphone app (offline) • Short, image & audio based survey on their interpretation of the immediate vegetation conditions, water availability and stocking rate • Reward system to incentivize data collection
  5. The Setup • Study Area: semi-arid rangelands in Laikipia and Samburu • Period: March-August 2015. Long Rain and Long Dry seasons • 113 local pastoralists across 5 sites trained and provided with smartphones, internet bundles, and solar changers • Participation: 112K submissions, ~95K valid
  6. Spatial sampling challenges • Submissions were clustered under baseline with spatially uniform rewards (Left) • Survey region is divided into 96 reward sub-regions (Center) to adjust the distribution of submissions • Each 10 days, the rewards are updated to reflect the distribution of submissions to date
  7. Big data, low quality? 1 Internal quality check-based on data consistency rules 2 Using the crowd to validate the crowd 3 ‘Scientific’ validation/cleaning using pictures, imagery, geotag
  8. WET SEASON Integration with remote sensing Unsupervised classification from MODIS NDVI seasonal profiles DRY SEASON AGRO-ECOLOGY WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE CROWD? USE OF RESOURCES – SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION DURING THE DRY AND WET SEASONS 1,2,3 4,5,6 7,8,9
  9. Integration with remote sensing LAND USE CLASS 1 : Wet season / Low stocking rate / Moderate to low water accessibility / Moderate intensity of use CLASS 2 : Annual / Moderate-Low stocking rate / Moderate water accessibility / High intensity of use CLASS 3 : Annual /high stocking rate. Good water accessibility / Moderate Intensity of use CLASS 5 : Wet season / High-Very High Stocking rate / Good water accessibility. Important dry season. Very good water accessibility wet season – limited in the dry / Low intensity of use. CLASS 4 : Annual /moderate carrying capacity / Moderate to low water accessibility / Moderate intensity of use particularly during the dry season. CLASS 6 : Wet season / High-Very High Stocking rate / Good water accessibility. Important dry season. Very limited water accessibility / Low intensity of use. CLASS 7, 8, 9 : Very Low intensity of use. Production - limited Dry season - refugees Water - limited Poorly accessible
  10. Thank you! bigdata.cgiar.org
Advertisement