Search

This article compares and assesses eight remotely sensed maps of Philippine forest cover in the year 2010. We examined eight Forest versus Non-Forest maps reclassified from eight land cover products: the Philippine Land Cover, the Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Land Cover, the Landsat Vegetation Continuous Fields (VCF), the MODIS VCF, the MODIS Land Cover Type product (MCD12Q1), the Global Tree Canopy Cover, the ALOS-PALSAR Forest/Non-Forest Map, and the GlobeLand30. The reference data consisted of 9852 randomly distributed sample points interpreted from Google Earth. We created methods to assess the maps and their combinations. Results show that the percentage of the Philippines covered by forest ranges among the maps from a low of 23% for the Philippine Land Cover to a high of 67% for GlobeLand30. Landsat VCF estimates 36% forest cover, which is closest to the 37% estimate based on the reference data. The eight maps plus the reference data agree unanimously on 30% of the sample points, of which 11% are attributable to forest and 19% to non-forest. The overall disagreement between the reference data and Philippine Land Cover is 21%, which is the least among the eight Forest versus Non-Forest maps. About half of the 9852 points have a nested structure such that the forest in a given dataset is a subset of the forest in the datasets that have more forest than the given dataset. The variation among the maps regarding forest quantity and allocation relates to the combined effects of the various definitions of forest and classification errors. Scientists and policy makers must consider these insights when producing future forest cover maps and when establishing benchmarks for forest cover monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tropical reforestation (TR) has been highlighted as an important intervention for climate change mitigation because of its carbon storage potential. TR can also play other frequently overlooked, but significant, roles in helping society and ecosystems adapt to climate variability and change. For example, reforestation can ameliorate climate-associated impacts of altered hydrological cycles in watersheds, protect coastal areas from increased storms, and provide habitat to reduce the probability of species' extinctions under a changing climate. Consequently, reforestation should be managed with both adaptation and mitigation objectives in mind, so as to maximize synergies among these diverse roles, and to avoid trade-offs in which the achievement of one goal is detrimental to another. Management of increased forest cover must also incorporate measures for reducing the direct and indirect impacts of changing climate on reforestation itself. Here we advocate a focus on 'climate-smart reforestation,' defined as reforesting for climate change mitigation and adaptation, while ensuring that the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on reforestation are anticipated and minimized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]