Introduction
International efforts, such as aspirational global conventions including the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (hereinafter 2030 Agenda), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the Conference of the Parties (COP21) Paris Agreement, call for progress to be made towards a more resilient and sustainable future worldwide. Delivering progress towards these conventions demands large amounts of different types of data from multiple sources. For the 2030 Agenda alone, a global indicator framework was developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) in 2017 that includes 232 indicators across 17 goals (
United Nations 2018;
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/). The Sendai Framework, designed to function as a management tool to help countries develop disaster risk reduction strategies, make risk-informed policy decisions, and allocate resources to prevent new disaster risks, identifies another 38 indicators for four priority areas and seven targets (
UNISDR 2015;
www.unisdr.org/we/monitor/indicators). The data requirements for these two conventions alone are extensive, but when coupled with more well-established conventions, such as the CBD, which itself has five goals and 20 targets (
CBD 1992;
www.cbd.int/sp/targets/), the magnitude of the challenge becomes clearer. This unprecedented demand for data, coupled with an unparalleled rate of innovation in data collection techniques and technologies, and the capacity to distribute data widely and freely, has expanded the horizon of possibility for solutions. The adoption of 2030 Agenda and the Sendai Framework, both in 2015, present strategic opportunities to build on the momentum of the data revolution and demonstrate the centrality of data for development (
Espey et al. 2015).
The need to recognise and contribute to data collection is particularly pertinent in a coastal and ocean context, where management-relevant data have traditionally been difficult to generate (
Rumson et al. 2017). More than any other geographic space, coasts are the place where the greatest confluence of societal activities occurs. With approximately 356 000 km
2 of global coastline (
Central Intelligence Agency 2016) benefiting from the convergence of some of the most productive and dynamic natural systems, coasts provide a large range of all four categories of ecosystem services: supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services (
Rodriguez et al. 2005;
Neumann et al. 2017). Along the coast, services such as coastal hazard protection (
Spalding et al. 2014), food and livelihood security (
Visbeck et al. 2014), carbon sequestration (
Chmura et al. 2003), and recreation opportunities (
Spalding et al. 2017) are all essential for human well-being at every scale (e.g., see
Wheeler et al. 2012 for well-being benefits associated with populations living by the coast in the UK). However, much of the world’s coast represents a ribbon of exposure to natural hazards with a history of catastrophic impacts. Climate warming and sea-level rise (SLR) are already negatively affecting natural ecosystems and human communities (
IPCC 2014). In addition, increased urbanisation at the coasts has both costs and benefits to society, directly in terms of the risks and utility derived from where people live and work as well as indirectly through distortions to cultural heritage, use patterns, and food chains (
Pelling and Blackburn 2014).
Sustainable coastal management, despite increasingly more expressive and binding legislation, increased scientific endeavor, and investment, still poses numerous implementation problems around the world (
Ali et al. 2018). Proposed solutions point to a need for more integrated approaches underpinned by participative and multidisciplinary processes, which support the sustainable use of coastal resources (
Henocque and Denis 2001). Emphasis is placed on coordinated approaches to better facilitate collaborative working. While concepts such as integrated coastal management and integrated coastal area management are now mature (
Birch and Reyes 2018), and much has been learned from implementation practices; certain recurrent challenges are likely to feature in the management and planning for coastal zones. Examples such as working with incomplete data for the region in question, insufficient understanding of the scale at which coastal systems operate, and undertaking and aggregating simultaneous monitoring of different activities are well described in the existing literature (e.g.,
Cash and Moser 2000;
Cornu et al. 2014). However, sustainable development cannot be attained while disasters and unsustainable practices continue to undermine economic growth and social progress (
United Nations 2015), which has led to an ever-increasing demand for suitable approaches and a sound evidence base to realise both sustainability and disaster risk reduction. Earth observation (EO) has a critical role to play in helping deliver success in terms of sustainability at scale, being a source of rich spatial and temporal datasets that complement other types of data, such as census information, civil registration and vital statistics, and in situ measurements.
According to the Group on Earth Observations (
GEO 2016), “Earth Observation is the gathering of information about planet Earth’s physical, chemical and biological systems” using remote sensing instruments (e.g., onboard unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), drones, aircraft, and satellites), among others. Following the successful launch of Sputnik I in 1957, the world’s first artificial satellite, and that of Vanguard 2 in 1959, the first weather satellite, satellite remote sensing for environmental research emerged as a side product of meteorology in the 1960s and its application in EO was quickly recognised (
Lillesand et al. 2004). Since then, numerous EO activities have produced an unprecedented amount of data on the Earth’s biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere. Following recent technological advances in the field, and increasingly strong interest in remote sensing by the scientific community, the volume of data and the end products of said data have also increased exponentially. The European Space Agency (ESA) archive alone hosts more than 1.5 PB of data and is expected to surpass 2 PB in a few years (
Nativi et al. 2015). In a similar manner to other Big Data, EO data are increasingly characterised by high volume, high velocity, and high variety, and pose requirements for veracity, value, and visualisation (
Jin et al. 2015;
Nativi et al. 2015). New EO-based applications and data synergies based on data-intensive science, the fourth scientific paradigm beyond empirical, theoretical, and computational science (
Chen and Zhang 2014), are now possible due to new satellite systems, advanced technologies, tools, and cloud processing platforms (e.g., EU H2020 Co-ReSyF,
http://co-resyf.eu/; ESA Coastal-TEP,
https://coastal-tep.eo.esa.int/portal/; Amazon Web Services,
https://aws.amazon.com/; Google Earth Engine,
https://earthengine.google.com/). However, despite the plethora of sensors, applications, and the variability of datasets that exist, determining the relevance of remote sensing data to coastal management is still ongoing. In addition, the translation of data into knowledge that can be used by decisionmakers at different scales is still an emerging field. Therefore, while EO data, and the recent Big Data revolution, offer possible solutions to coastal management and sustainability challenges, these solutions must be part of a cohesive transdisciplinary approach rather than applied in isolation.
Extensive research into coastal sustainability issues has highlighted opportunities for EO data and technologies to support coastal management efforts, particularly in relation to environmental monitoring. Examples include wetland mapping (e.g.,
Adam et al. 2010;
Klemas 2014); algal bloom detection (e.g.,
Blondeau-Patissier et al. 2014); hazard mitigation, disaster response (e.g., early warning systems (
Behrens et al. 2010), and flood monitoring (
De Groeve 2010;
Klemas 2015a); land-use cover and change (e.g.,
Joshi et al. 2016); coastal geomorphology (e.g.,
Klemas 2011;
Deepika et al. 2014)); maritime safety and security issues, such as vessel detection (e.g.,
Corbane et al. 2008;
Margarit et al. 2009), and oil spill detection (e.g.,
Brekke and Solberg 2005;
Fingas and Brown 2014); sea-state forecasting and sea level change (e.g.,
Dwarakish et al. 2009;
Bosch et al. 2014); and urban development and coastal wetland loss (
Wu et al. 2018;
Rojas et al. 2019). In addition, endeavours such as Marine Spatial Planning (
Ouellette and Getine 2016) and sustainable urban development at the coast (
Corbane et al. 2008;
Ban et al. 2015) actively incorporate multiple data sources, including EO data, to generate potential solutions to increasingly complex issues.
This paper aims to present four innovative aquatic EO applications whose relevance to the sustainable management and planning of coastal waters is currently being explored, and, using these examples, discuss the potential role EO can play in the delivery of international conventions, such as the 2030 Agenda, CBD, and Sendai Framework. By identifying potential data gaps, opportunities, and challenges, this paper begins to answer the key question of how EO can most effectively contribute to crafting options, approaches, and solutions towards sustainability (COASTS) for coastal regions of the world. Even though this paper focuses on four water applications as key examples, the authors acknowledge the existence of, and ongoing developments on, several other water, land, and climate or atmosphere EO applications that hold potential for the delivery of international conventions, but it is not within the scope of the paper to address those in detail.
Supporting the delivery of international conventions through EO
The 2015 adoption of these landmark UN agreements, in combination with the
CBD (1992), the COP21’s Paris Climate Conference (2015), and Habitat III’s New Urban Agenda (2017) created a significant opportunity to build coherence across overlapping social and ecological policy spaces. The lack of integration across strategies, policies, and implementation has long been perceived as one of the main barriers to more sustainable development (
International Council for Science 2017). Insufficient accounting for trade-offs and synergies at multiple scales has resulted in incoherence, adverse and unexpected impacts, and ultimately in diverging outcomes and trends across global objectives for sustainable development (
Neumann et al. 2017). However, when taken in combination, this new suit of frameworks covers a more comprehensive resilience agenda spanning development, humanitarian, climate, and disaster risk reduction areas.
This reality implies a need for greater cohesion at the implementation level. The previous section of this paper presented four novel and rapidly advancing EO applications with strong relevance to various aspects of coastal sustainability and management. These four example applications also highlight the potential for EO data and derived information to supplement and support the simultaneous delivery of multiple indicators, targets, and goals of different international conventions, such as 2030 Agenda, the Sendai Framework, and the CBD (
Table 1). The inherent interconnectedness of many of the goals and targets of international conventions demonstrate the potential for added value when applying technologies, such as EO, to support implementation. As shown in
Table 1, the four EO applications described in this study can indirectly and directly support 19 UN SDG indicators pertaining to SD Goals 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14. This is in agreement with a similar synthesis performed by the international initiative “Earth Observations for the Sustainable Development Goals (EO4SDG)” on the most likely UN SDG targets and indicators to which EO can contribute (
GEO 2016). Many of the same EO-based data and information products can also be used to inform and support five Sendai Targets (12 Sendai indicators) and two CDB Goals (six CBD targets) (
Table 1).
It should be noted that EO data and information can contribute indirectly (i.e., support) or directly (i.e., measurement) to the above-mentioned indicators, targets, and goals. For example, indirect contribution can be demonstrated using SDG2 Target 2.4, Indicator 2.4.1 “Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture”. Agricultural runoff is a major cause of eutrophication and deterioration of water quality in coastal areas (
Ongley 1996). Water quality measurements provide an indicator of the nature and health of an ecosystem and degraded water quality can lead to a reduction in marine biodiversity (
Jackson 2008) as well as dramatically impact quality and quantity of ecosystem services (
Barbier et al. 2011) leading to knock-on effects on human health and well-being (
Myers et al. 2013). Quantifying the amount of land under agricultural use in coastal zones is therefore a key baseline statistic that can be used as a proxy for non-point-source pollution, and EO-based land cover and use mapping can play an important role in this. By supplementing that knowledge with information on coastal water quality and trophic status along coastlines (see section entitled “Application 1. Optical water types for coastal water quality monitoring”), targeted action toward better management of agricultural runoff and establishment of measures for sustainable agriculture can be taken to improve overall ecosystem health and tackle biodiversity loss. Therefore, the task of enhancing EO-based land cover and use data with accurate OWT-based water quality retrievals can help support the implementation of both SDG Indicator 2.4.1 and CDB Target B.8. In fact, in most cases presented in
Table 1, the role of EO is supportive and supplementary to overall implementation.
There are also cases where EO measurements can directly contribute to an indicator, such as in the case of SDG6 Target 6.3 Indicator 6.3.2 “Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality”. EO has been used for decades as a tool for local, regional, and global coastal water monitoring. The most recent technological and methodological advances (e.g., see section entitled “Application 1. Optical water types for coastal water quality monitoring”) have shown great promise for coastal water quality retrievals (e.g.,
Moore et al. 2014) and various initiatives are now engaging local and national stakeholders and decisionmakers to build trust and capacity in EO-based water monitoring (e.g.,
Paterson et al. 2018;
UN Environment 2018) and explore the implementation of the SDGs using EO at the regional level (e.g.,
Plag and the Workshop Participants 2018).
While there are numerous benefits of using EO technology as an operational support tool for sustainability planning, implementation, and monitoring, there is an acceptance that EO data are not a one-size-fits-all solution to increased coastal sustainability and improved management. The incorporation of EO data can complement existing spatiotemporal data collections as well as allow for inaccessible areas to be more efficiently monitored and managed, but these data must be used in conjunction with in situ social and biophysical datasets.
Recognising challenges, and opportunities, with EO data use
Whilst international conventions are signed at the global level, actions and successes take place at national and sub-national scales. However,
limited capacity and capabilities, both human and technical, drive the disparity in current EO use across regions (north versus south and west versus east) and restrict much of the potential uses of EO applications at national and sub-national scales, especially in the global south (
Vanhove et al. 2017) (i.e., countries seen as low and middle income in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean by the World Bank). In addition, the translation of the relevance of technical applications such as EO to decision support knowledge, along with language surrounding multiple monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, such as the indicators and targets described in
Table 1, is often a difficult link to make. Also, past experiences of a variety of state actors, working for various state agencies, have resulted in a continued express of concern around data sources, data processing, and uses of data (
EDPS 2015); this has resulted in mistrust and political rejection of methodologies, technologies, and data products (
von Maurich and Golkar 2018), highlighting the added issue of
limited institutional acceptance of EO data and information.
Beyond issues stemming from lack of infrastructure and capacity, product accuracy, and reliability, lack of validation data, data continuity, and cost have been identified as main reasons as to why management decisions do not typically rely on EO-derived water quality products, according to a recent survey that was conducted within the USA Environmental Protection Agency (
Schaeffer et al. 2013).
Product accuracy and reliability and
lack of suitable validation data are issues that the EO community has begun to address in recent years. Through interaction with users and stakeholders, and collaborations with in situ data holders, EO products have become more accurate and application-driven as, for example, in the case of the ESA CCI programme (
http://cci.esa.int/) and projects such as EU H2020 CyanoAlert (
www.cyanoalert.com/), EU H2020 CoastObs (
https://coastobs.eu/), and ESA Thematic Exploitation Platforms (TEPs;
https://tep.eo.esa.int/). Large and open access marine and terrestrial data repositories of in situ measurements, for example, SeaDataNet (
www.seadatanet.org/), EMODnet (
www.emodnet.eu/), Argo (
www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html), Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS;
www.goosocean.org/), and International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN;
https://ismn.geo.tuwien.ac.at/) serve as sources of validation data for water and land remote sensing. Examples of large-scale validation efforts include ESA MERMAID (
http://mermaid.acri.fr/home/home.php); a centralised database of merged in situ optical measurements and concurrent ENVISAT MERIS acquisitions for ocean research, UK NERC LIMNADES (
www.limnades.org/home.psp); a centralised database of worldwide bio-optical measurements and match-up data for remote sensing, and EU H2020 MONOCLE (
www.monocle-h2020.eu/Home); a project that is currently developing in situ observation solutions for EO-based coastal and inland water quality. Finally, the Group on Earth Observations “system of systems” approach (GEOSS;
www.earthobservations.org/geoss.php) combines information from different sources and promotes common technical standards so that different datasets can be combined in a coherent manner towards advancement of EO techniques and applications.
Sensor discontinuity has in the past affected the remote sensing community. In the field of ocean colour and water monitoring, the most recent example was when ENVISAT MERIS unexpectedly failed in April 2012 creating a 4 year data gap in medium spatial resolution, multi-spectral EO-based water monitoring until the launch of its successor Sentinel-3A OLCI in February 2016. However, the consensus on this is changing and space agencies have started developing satellite sensors that offer continuity to previous missions, with one of the best examples of this effort being the NASA–USGS (US Geological Survey) Landsat-series. At the same time, methodological advances enable researchers to better harmonise datasets from different instruments and, thus, generate merged long-term datasets, such as the global multi-decadal products of the ESA CCI programme (see, e.g., the Soil Moisture (
Dorigo et al. 2017) and Ocean Colour (
Mélin et al. 2017) products). Furthermore, these methodological advances are coupled with a recent increase in free data provision by large initiatives, such as the European Copernicus programme (
http://copernicus.eu/), providing long-term spatially explicit time series of free applications-focused data.
Challenges that exist around barriers to effective data access, sharing, management, storage, and usage are numerous and complex. Many
institutional and financial barriers to data access exist, including costs for data already collected and processed, often with public funding, and license conditions on the use of the data and publication of results (
Beniston et al. 2012). In some cases, for example, data collected may be highly political and beyond the influence of the scientific community (
Giuliani et al. 2017;
L. Zhang et al. 2018) and in other cases there may be geographical or temporal sparseness of data reducing utility (
Espey et al. 2015;
Plag and the Workshop Participants 2018). In the case of the USGS Landsat archive, recent considerations around changing the open data access policy to cost-sharing models (
LAG 2019) could mean that the current free access to the longest environmental satellite archive may be restrained by one’s budget in the future and, thus, restricting data use and stifling innovation and business activity (
NGAC 2012). In addition, limited investment to centralise or secure different types of data, and (or) storing the same type of data in various formats with little compatibility can create cascading issues across potential or actual users. While there are examples of efforts under way in Europe to remove the obstacles and costs related to data access for the purposes of research and policy-making, in particular, the European INSPIRE Directive of 2007 (
http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/), the trajectory of progress is still slow and additional efforts are still needed by most EU Member States towards identification of spatial datasets, provision of services for access to spatial data and alignment of spatial data with regards to the common data models under INSPIRE (
Cetl et al. 2017).
In recent years, EO organisations and funding bodies have begun to address some of the abovementioned issues and challenges by attempting to utilise cloud computing as a means of allowing access to EO data and processing capabilities under intuitive cloud processing platforms (e.g., EU H2020 Co-ReSyF and ESA TEPs). This emerging trend of thematically dedicated EO cloud platforms aims to provide virtual environments which not only facilitate the use of EO data for thematic research (e.g., coastal, but also urban, forestry, geohazards, and food security), but also broaden the uptake of EO data use in scientific communities by providing improved processing capabilities, easier data access, and more accessible infrastructure. A key step in the initiation of said platforms is stakeholder engagement within the scientific community. Building services based on stakeholder needs and recommendations not only ensures relevant and sustainable platform development but it also serves to engage, educate, and animate the wider community with regard to the capabilities of EO.
Finally, one of the most common limitations of optical (see the sections entitled
Application 1. Optical water types for coastal water quality monitoring;
Application 2. Species niche habitat distribution mapping; and
Application 3. Complementary multi-platform coastal bathymetry) and thermal (e.g., used for SST — see the section entitled
Application 2. Species niche habitat distribution mapping) remote sensing applications is the effectiveness of the AC applied to the EO data. In turbid coastal waters, standard AC models often exhibit large inaccuracies (
Fan et al. 2017) and previous studies have shown that not one single AC works in all cases (e.g.,
Larnicol et al. 2018;
M. Zhang et al. 2018). However, AC models, such as the Polymer and C2RCC have shown great potential in optically complex waters (
Mograne et al. 2019), such as those found in coastal areas, and it may be the case that different ACs are suited for different regions, coastal water bodies or applications. For example, the image correction for atmospheric effects (iCOR) algorithm was developed for both land and water pixels to reduce discontinuities in reflectance caused by separate application of water- and land-specific AC within one scene (
De Keukelaere et al. 2018), and could therefore be a suitable option for transitional areas, such as the coastal zone.
Discussion and conclusions
There is a growing realisation and acceptance that sustainable development cannot be attained while disasters and unsustainable practices continue to undermine economic growth and social progress at many scales (
United Nations 2015); this remains most pertinent in the coastal zones of the world. This reality has led to an ever-increasing demand from decision makers and planners alike for salient, near-real-time information and decision-support tools that can provide a sound evidence base to help enable the realisation of both the sustainability and the disaster risk reduction agendas in tandem. Earth observation holds much unrealised potential in data and knowledge provision in the field of coastal management. Data inaccuracy, cost, and discontinuity have in the past prohibited long-term and reliable retrievals of EO data, but this is changing. With the recent open data policy adopted by large space agencies around the world (e.g., NASA and ESA), users can now freely download the full archives of satellite sensors, including the 40 year long NASA–USGS Landsat archive and the new Copernicus Sentinel-series datasets. In addition, a variety of EO products with known and improved accuracies now exist (see, e.g., the ESA Climate Change Initiative programme) and the remote sensing community, supported by global initiatives, such the Group on Earth Observations, has been tackling issues such as product validation and AC to further improve product accuracy and uptake. With user engagement initiatives and related funding opportunities also increasing in number in the last few years, there has been an increase in contributions towards building national capacity around the world and overcoming obstacles, such as lack of infrastructure and training. Examples include the ESA-funded “Utilising Earth Observation to support Blue Growth and Risk Management in the Caribbean”, which coupled capacity building with user engagement and consultation (
Scarrott et al. 2018) to produce a stakeholder-led set of actions and a roadmap (
Paterson et al. 2018) for enhancing EO support for targeted coastal issues and opportunities.
This paper clearly demonstrates that EO can be used to provide a more synoptic view of coastal water systems that can support and enhance sustainable management. While this paper has focused on only four innovative applications, there exist many more satellite EO-based applications that should also be considered and integrated into efforts towards the implementation of sustainable management practices. As it was not the intention of this study to list all suitable, or potentially suitable, EO applications covering water, land, and air in the coastal zone, we used four coastal applications as key examples to demonstrate the applicability of EO for coastal sustainable management and discuss associated challenges. There is also a strong case for the increased use of archived EO datasets to analyse long-term trends now that improved technical cloud processing-based applications are becoming more user-friendly, and data are becoming more accessible through shifting data sharing practices. The paper also demonstrates the value of EO applications in supporting the implementation of multiple policy instruments and conventions that are currently driving the global transition to sustainable development, both as stand-alone sources of information and as complementary data sources to more traditional in situ collections. This, in turn, emphasises the importance of transdisciplinary collaborations to realise the full potential to transform existing management practices and access as-yet undefined solution spaces within coastal management.