Annex A
Using Earth Observation to produce indices of
habitat condition and change
To find out more about JNCC visit http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1729
December 2014
Annex A
Title of project:
Using Earth Observation to produce indices of
habitat condition and change
Date and time for return of
tenders:
Friday 9 January 2015 @ 1600 hrs
Contract Reference No:
C14-0171-0901
Address for tender
submission:
1 electronic copy to be sent to
TenderResponse@jncc.gov.uk
PLEASE DO NOT SEND TENDERS DIRECTLY TO
PAUL ROBINSON, ANNA ROBINSON, DORA
IANTOSCA OR GORDON GREEN VIA THEIR
PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESSES, AS THIS WILL
INVALIDATE YOUR TENDER
Tender responses must be less than 10 MB in size.
On receipt of your tender, you will receive an automated
e-mail to confirm receipt by JNCC Support Co. If you do
not receive this automated email, please contact, in the
following order:
Sue Wenlock (00 44 1733 866880)
Chris Downes (00 44 1733 866877)
Contacts for technical
information relating to this
project specification:
Contact for any queries
regarding the tendering
procedure:
Paul Robinson
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Email: Paul.Robinson@jncc.gov.uk
Tel: 01733 866867
OR
Anna Robinson
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Email: Anna.Robinson@jncc.gov.uk
Tel: 01733 866851
Dora Iantosca or Gordon Green
Finance Team
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Email: Dora.Iantosca@jncc.gov.uk or
Gordon.green@jncc.gov.uk
Tel: 01733 866894 or 01733 866806
Proposed start-date:
w/c 19 January 2014
Proposed end-date:
27 March 2015
2
December 2014
1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the statutory adviser to the UK
Government and devolved administrations on UK and international nature conservation. Its
work contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity, conserving geological
features and sustaining natural systems.
Our role is to provide evidence, information and advice so that decisions are made that
protect natural resources and systems. Our specific role is to work on nature conservation
issues that affect the UK as a whole and internationally:

advising Government on the development and implementation of policies for, or
affecting, nature conservation in the UK and internationally;

providing advice and disseminate knowledge on nature conservation issues affecting
the UK and internationally;

establishing common standards throughout the UK for nature conservation, including
monitoring, research, and the analysis of results; and

commissioning or supporting research which it deems relevant to these functions.
2. Project Aims
To understand the potential and feasibility of using parameters calculated from Earth
Observation (EO) data to detect changes that can occur in habitats that may be significant
enough to affect ecosystem function or biodiversity value. These changes may occur in
habitats either through direct management intervention (e.g. artificial improvement of a
grassland), or through longer term natural processes (e.g. scrubbing up of a heathland).
3. Project Background
There are a series of land interventions that act to affect either landscape features, such as
hedges or field margins, or habitats and their condition in order to achieve specific
biodiversity or ecosystem service outcomes. Mechanisms using such interventions include:







Nitrate vulnerable zones
Catchment sensitive farming
Nature Improvement Areas
Voluntary farmer’s schemes
SSSI management
Agri-environment schemes
Grant schemes
All such mechanisms incur costs of paying grants to land owners or more direct costs of land
management and so require an element of monitoring to ensure that the costs are achieving
the desired impact. Much of this sort of monitoring currently involves some element of
manual aerial photography interpretation, but also requires site visits and so is a time
consuming task. This work is therefore looking to assess if automated processing of remote
sensed data can target fieldwork, and therefore decrease the amount necessary, as well as
providing the potential to produce measures of change in biodiversity or ecosystem services
values over larger areas (landscapes, regions, countries). It will also assess if it is possible
3
December 2014
that such data could form part of a shared service enabling different organisations to utilise it
for their own differing requirements.
The National Forest Inventory, which is run by the Forestry Commission, contains an
operational system that uses EO data to assess changes in quality of woodland habitats in
order to locate woodland loss. It can be regarded as a working example of the principles
that this project will investigate in habitats other than forest. The NFI tri-annual processing of
high resolution satellite data across the UK produces an output that is relevant at a local site
scale (as it enables targeted, detailed investigation of changes) as well as building up a
national picture of change in the stock of the woodland resource and the rates of conversion
to other land cover and uses. The system works because the stock of woodlands over 0.5ha
has been mapped in detail, so all of these areas can be tested in an automated system with
appropriate questions asked of the remote sensed data because the map provides the
context within which the automated system can work. In this case the system can look for
areas of change in vegetation productivity which is likely to represent felling of trees, windblow or the conversion of forest to urban or other uses. The principles that can be extracted
from this example are:
-
-
With a detailed spatially accurate digital inventory/map of a habitat it is possible to
test for unexpected changes in imagery.
The remote sensing is cost effective when it can be applied to a widespread habitat
or feature (hedges, trees) consistently over large areas, providing outputs that can be
simply validated, e.g.: by visual inspection of aerial photography, or that significantly
reduce the field effort needed.
The significant changes (including transitions to other habitats, types of management
that will influence condition) or condition states of a habitat are understood and
information that can be derived from satellites is likely to be able to detect the type
and scale of change, even if it does it in a completely different way to current field
based techniques. This can enable efficient use of field resource as it can be
focussed on high risk areas.
The second phase of the Making EO Work for UK Biodiversity project has published some
findings on how EO data can be used to detect factors that impact on habitat condition
(http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6279). Based on that work and others, we can say that the
sort of changes that are likely to be detectable include things such as








Changes in vegetation productivity
Changes in wetness
Changes in the woodiness of the vegetation
Changes in vegetation structure
Changes in the amount of bare ground
The presence or size of linear features
Conversion of natural habitat to built structures
Eutrophication
There are many habitat types that are monitored in the field to see if the condition is
changing, using approaches such as Common Standards Monitoring. It will be useful to
consider the assessments made through such approaches but we also need to consider
changes that will impact on other Ecosystem Service values as well as biodiversity value.
The relevant services to consider in this will vary between habitat types, but those relating to
water and carbon are always likely to be significant. Habitat condition can have a major
influence on the movement of water and on the level of carbon sequestration for example.
JNCC has already done some work on relationship between high value service and habitats,
4
December 2014
which can be found in two reports on using a spatial framework for ecosystem service
analysis. Reports for these two projects are on the JNCC website
(http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6241, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6690).
A further piece of work that is relevant to this project is the development of the Crick
Framework (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6281), which provides information on the potential
for using EO methods to map the extent of certain habitat types. Currently the Framework
contains detail regarding mapping of BAP Priority Habitats and Habitats Directive Annex 1
habitats. Outputs from this project will start to populate the Crick Framework with
information on the use of EO methods to assess habitat condition.
4. Project Objectives
This work intends to test if the principles used in the NFI can be extended to a wider suite of
habitat types. Given the time available for this project it will not be possible to carry out a
comprehensive analysis of this area. It will therefore be necessary to narrow down the
selection of habitat types to be considered in more detail. In considering the grouping of
habitats to consider in further detail, please note other existing related work in order to
prevent duplication of effort. There are already other initiatives which have investigated
relevant techniques in some habitats, for example CEH has looked at lake Eutrophication,
recent studies in Wales have looked at measuring peat based habitats and work is just
starting that will explore how radar data can be used to monitoring heathland burning. This
study should not focus on woodlands because this is already covered by the NFI.
The process would follow this general approach:
1. Select a limited number of habitat types to focus on. A review should be carried out
to categorise how these habitats can change, either naturally or through
management intervention, in a way that will affect ecosystem function or biodiversity
value (e.g. a heathland scrubbing up or a grassland being artificially improved). The
rates of change should be considered in order to assess how frequently assessment
should be carried out. There should also be a review of how we currently assess
condition and function of habitats, in order to help to develop this understanding of
significant changes and how they can be measured.
2. Understand how EO data can help us to identify the changes in land use and land
management (or lack thereof) identified in the previous step. Overlap and covariance
between the various measurable parameters must be considered within this step.
3. Plan how relevant EO data could be systematically analysed and what data would be
required for such a system, including what types of EO data (optical/radar/LiDAR,
aerial/satellite) as well as other data.
4. Draw up a detailed plan for a practical test of how the project findings can be carried
out. This plan could then be used to explore some of the findings based around one
group of habitats such as grasslands, as a pilot. Such a pilot would be at a relatively
small geographical scale to keep data costs down and because of the limited time
available and suggestions for suitable sites with appropriate data could be supplied
by the steering group members (carrying out the pilot of the test is optional and
should be costed separately)
5
December 2014
5. Project Objectives: Detailed tasks
The following section gives more explanation around the four steps of the approach
described above. The points below are not intended to be proscriptive but rather to supply
additional information and outline the sorts of questions that are likely to be relevant.
Step 1: Understanding change:
Once the habitat groups have been prioritised to go into further detail, then for each of the
selected groups, possible changes that can occur in each one will be considered. This will
include the likely timeframes over which the change could take place and how the scale of
that change may affect function or biodiversity value. Groups to be prioritised could be
general habitat groupings where the fine classes within them have fairly similar management
or transitions effecting them (for example, different types of grassland may be similarly
affected by scrubbing, grazing, fertilising, drying) or narrower habitat classes that are
widespread or reasonably extensive and so an efficient EO method would be likely to help.
Step 2: Can EO detect the change at a relevant scale:
Once the changes are understood then it should be asked whether the change could be
identified from EO data. If so, what data would be required, at what resolution (geographical
and temporal) in order to detect the change in a way that would be relevant to management?
The practicality of any ideas explored will have to be investigated, so in the case of solutions
that require multiple data sources per year, how likely might that be, given the sensors that
could provide that data?
The review of current assessment techniques will be useful in understanding significant
changes in condition. However, it should also be considered if EO can provide any
additional indication of habitat change that cannot be detected through traditional
assessment methods. Whilst the review is likely to provide useful insight into possible
methods it will not provide all of the answers as EO data is likely to enable novel techniques
to be used in identifying changes to habitats.
The main focus of this work needs to consider data from broader swath instruments, which
enable simple processing over large areas, with multiple passes. Sentinel data, both active
and passive sensors, and Landsat will be considered as a priority as it is free at the point of
use. Other high resolution instruments should not be ruled out, however, as they could still
provide cost effective solutions in some circumstances. Aerial data from APGB, which
includes CIR and stereo imagery on a 3 year refresh cycle, will also be considered.
Alternative aerial sensors, such as LiDAR will also be considered but we don’t have a means
of deploying universally, data will be limited to where EA/SEPA fly, so is there a way that
they can be used?
The EO data is likely to be analysed through producing a series of parameters. What would
those parameters be and for what factors leading to change could those parameters be
informative? These parameters will often not be direct measurements of biophysical
characteristics on the ground, so we need to understand the relationship between the image
analysis and conditions on the ground. So this step needs to look not only at the likelihood
of differences on the image showing real change on the ground, but also at the likelihood of
real change on the ground happening without showing detectable differences on the image.
6
December 2014
The aim is therefore to try to estimate repeatable measures from satellite imagery, with
modelled uncertainty built in.
It should be assumed that the analysis can focus on parcels of land that have already been
classified to the particular habitat grouping being considered, e.g. as documented in an
existing habitat inventory.
Step 3: Plan how a system could operate:
Any system that would provide the parameter outputs will be closely related to, or part of the
hub and spoke model that is currently being investigated by Defra. The hub will provide
access to available satellite data, including that provided by Copernicus and possibly others,
such as NovaSAR. It may also include the provision of certain generic products, such as the
parameters being investigated here. The spokes will be a wide variety of analyses that can
be carried out using the data available from the Hub.
This aspect of the work would have to consider each parameter proposed in step 3 in order
to assess how it could be calculated and delivered to best meet user needs. Further
questions to evaluate will be around whether the products will need some form of calibration
and how that could be achieved. Also, do you need absolute validation somewhere such as
from an ECN site, or just relative change or values at each location.
There is no requirement here to create a detailed plan of a system to deliver all of this, but
the project should create a clear analysis of the processing that would be required for
delivering each of the proposed parameter outputs. That analysis will enable planning in the
future as it will show the data that would be required and the analytical processes that would
be used.
Step 4: Practical test:
This step will produce detailed recommendations on how a practical test of the project
findings can be carried out. If time and resources are available then a pilot of the proposed
test method can be run for a particular habitat grouping. A test area would have to be
chosen as it would not be feasible to run a national test.
There are a number of digital inventories that could be used for this test, such as the map of
Norfolk created in Phase 2 of the MEOW project (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6279), The
Wales Habitat Map (Gwylio), Native Woodlands Survey of Scotland and Natural England’s
Priority Habitat Inventory. The contractor will need to suggest options of where there could
be good field data available to validate the processing.
This test would aim to show specific examples of how this approach could identify change in
habitat extent or condition and in landscape features. It will test that the data available can
be used at the appropriate scale in order to work with the digital inventories and to test
proposed processing requirements.
The pilot running of this practical test should be separately costed and a detailed description
given as to how this could be delivered in the timescale.
6. Outputs
The minimum outputs required for the project are:
7
December 2014
Rapid conceptual framework that can be added to Crick Framework, ie: habitat groupings,
types of transition to other habitats or land use, condition, and most likely parameters and
data sources. This will not be an exhaustive list, but will capture all of the findings from this
project.
Recommendations on habitat groupings to investigate in detail (interim output) based on
knowledge of extent of habitat and of likelihood that the principles will work well.
Report on detailed investigation of how EO parameters relate to habitat condition and
change in agreed selected habitats, and how assessment could be implemented. E.g.
Include detail on significant changes, data sources, processing, things to test/validate,
practicality, generic vs specific processing.
Test proposal – EO , inventory and field validation sets that would be used, steps needed to
make them available to the work, any barriers or opportunities for field test. If time and
resources allow then the test proposal could be carried out, but this is not an essential
requirement.
7. Timescale
Provisional dates for delivery of the contact outputs are set out below. Exact dates are to be
agreed at start-up meeting based on Contractor and JNCC staff availability.
Milestones
Provisional dates
Start-up meeting (UK)
w/c 19 January 2015
Mid project review
w/c 23 February 2015
Final project delivery
27 March 2015
In agreeing exact dates please note that the potential for work under this contract to be
funded into 2014/15 is subject to availability of funds.
8. Health and safety
The Contractor is expected to follow appropriate Health & Safety procedures and undertake
appropriate risk assessments, evidence of which should be supplied to JNCC. (NB under no
circumstances should any work or service commence prior to the receipt of written approval
of the risk assessment by JNCC H&S advisor)
Any incidents occurring within the contract should be immediately reported to JNCC.
9. Product specification
The final report must adhere to the JNCC report template and house style guidance unless
stated otherwise. The draft and final reports should be provided electronically via email both
as a Microsoft Word document and an Adobe PDF.
8
December 2014
10.
Project management
The Contractor shall nominate a project manager, who shall be responsible for ensuring the
project is completed satisfactorily and who shall be the main contact point for JNCC.
JNCC’s main contact points will be:
Paul Robinson
Email: Paul.Robinson@jncc.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1733 866867
Anna Robinson
Email: Anna.Robinson@jncc.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1733 866851
11.
Instructions for tender submission
The tender submission should include the following:
9

A brief summary of the potential Contractor’s experience in relation to the
requirements of this contract;

A proposed approach for achieving the objectives of the contract (and delivering the
detailed tasks identified within each objective). This should be sufficiently detailed
allow assessment against the evaluation criteria (Section 12);

A detailed project plan (including Gantt chart), including the proposed work
programme and an estimate of time required to achieve each objective;

Details of Quality Control procedures to be followed (this should be in accordance
with the new JNCC Evidence Quality Assurance Policy; tenderers are asked to note
the Evidence Quality Assurance Policy document and Guidance Notes that
accompany the Invitation to Tender);

Details of the Contractor’s own internal Quality Management System;

Details of the Project Team, including their roles and experience, an estimate of their
time input into each task, and CVs of all personnel involved in the contract;

Availability of the Project Team for a start-up meeting by teleconference

Overall quote for the contract, to include:
o
Daily rates for all members of the Project Team;
o
Rates for attending final meeting in Peterborough (costs for travel and
accommodation are attached and should be used. These rates are analogous
to the civil service rates);
December 2014

o
Costs and time allocation should be clearly allocated to specific tasks within
this contract; and
o
VAT if applicable. The contractor is to specify whether VAT at the prevailing
rate would be applicable to this project and to provide their company’s VAT
registration number.
The following documentation:
o
Copies of health and safety policy statements where available or a note
regarding such items as lone working, emergency procedures and accident
reporting;
o
Copies of current public and employer liability insurance certificates; and
o
Copies of any appropriate risk assessments.
o
Copies of any environmental policies should you have them
In addition, note that the tender submission should provide sufficient information to allow
assessment against the criteria outlined in Section 14.
12.
Evaluation Criteria
JNCC are not bound to accept the lowest priced or any tender. Having the technical
expertise and experience to complete the work to a high standard, and being able to
complete it within the timescale, are of the essence for this contract.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. Quality of proposal, (50% of the total for the three assessment categories)
10
Clarity of proposal (particularly work plan and deliverables)
10
Likelihood of achieving project objectives within time and budget
(including assessment of risk)
10
Soundness and logicality of methods
10
Degree of scientific merit
10
Extent to which the proposed outputs fit with the JNCC project
specification
10
Sub Totals
50
Score
Max Score
Tenders will be evaluated using the following criteria:
December 2014
2. Details of Contractor (25 % of the two assessment categories)
Expertise, experience and balance of team
15
Project planning and management
10
Sub Totals
25
3. Cost (25% of the total for the three assessment categories)
Cost effectiveness of proposed work
15
Appropriateness of ratio of senior to junior staff time
5
Clarity of each team member’s contribution and value added
5
Sub Totals
Total score
13.
25
100
Payment
Payment will be made on completion of the objectives, following the submission of an
invoice(s); and based on satisfactory undertaking of the contractual elements to the agreed
standard of the JNCC Project Officer.
14.
Additional Contractor requirements
All tenderers are requested to carefully read the Terms and Conditions applying to this
contract. Payment will only be made upon delivery of key milestones.
It is assumed that all costs associated with the production of figures, reproduction of
photographs and the final report are accounted for within the rates and fees given.
The Contractor is expected to supply all necessary equipment, software, licences etc. to
carry out the obligations required under the contract.
11