Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:18:18.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022

Karen E. Joyce Open the ORCID record for Karen E. Joyce [Opens in a new window] ,
Kate C. Fickas  and
Michelle Kalamandeen
Karen E. Joyce*
Affiliation:
TropWATER / College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University Nguma-bada campus, Smithfield, QLD, Australia
Kate C. Fickas
Affiliation:
Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD, USA Climate Hazards Center, UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Michelle Kalamandeen
Affiliation:
School of Earth, Environment and Society, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Karen E. Joyce, Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Coasts are undeniably regions of critical importance for a range of environmental, sociocultural, and economic reasons. Yet they are also areas of intense anthropogenic impact and are particularly susceptible to climate change-related concerns. As such, it is imperative that we have the means to monitor and manage them in a sustainable manner. Drone technology has emerged as providing a unique value proposition in coastal environments to support data-driven monitoring and management decisions. With their highly detailed data capture capability, drones are particularly well suited to map the spatial heterogeneity, structural complexity, and temporally dynamic nature of coasts. Further, they are readily accessible to coastal populations and can promote grassroots action by the very people whose lives and livelihoods the coasts support. Herein, we cover several of the leading innovations in using aerial drones to map coastal ecosystems. We then consider how general trends and technology projections including artificial intelligence, as well as cloud and edge computing offer opportunities for the future of drone mapping and monitoring in a coastal context. While the challenge of change is inevitable, embracing the opportunities it provides will allow us to better understand and live sustainably with and within our coastal ecosystems.

Topics structure

Topic(s)

Monitoring

Subtopic(s)

Data collection, modelling and analysisRemote sensing and GIS

Keywords

dronescoastalremote sensingerosioncoastal habitatsmangrovesseagrasscoral reef3D structurecommunity led
Type
Review
Information
Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures , Volume 1 , 2023 , e6
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

This review provides a snapshot in time covering some of the most exciting and innovative uses of aerial drone technology for mapping and capturing data in coastal ecosystems. We discuss how several of the defining characteristics of coasts make them particularly well-suited to drone technologies. For example:

  1. 1. Coasts are inherently spatially heterogeneous, but drones can acquire data with unprecedented detail from low altitudes, capturing the heterogeneity at multiple scales.

  2. 2. Coastal ecosystems are structurally complex, which is both a cause and effect of various processes including erosion and deposition. The structural complexity can be modeled in three dimensions using what is now considered routine computer processing of drone mapping data to further understand coastal environments and their associated biophysical processes.

  3. 3. Coastal environments are temporally dynamic and constantly changing in response to environmental conditions, but drones can be flown on flexible time schedules to capture data and account for this.

  4. 4. Coasts support many lives and livelihoods, which makes them the perfect breeding ground for democratizing technology such as drones to take flight.

In reviewing current applications of drone technology, combined with the growth trajectory and emerging trends in technology more broadly, we offer perspectives for the future of using drones in coastal ecosystems. We suggest that advances in sensor engineering, platform availability, and automation in terms of data capture and processing are most likely to be game-changing technologies over the next five years. While the technology advances will be instrumental in enabling broader adoption of drones and their data, exciting and transformative change in coastal monitoring and management is also likely to occur in local communities from a grassroots level. It is the combination of technology with people that will drive sustainable lives and livelihoods in coastal environments for the future.

Introduction

With nearly half of the global population living within 100 km of a coastline, it comes as no surprise that these regions are important for a wide range of environmental, sociocultural, and economic reasons. At the interface between land and sea, coastal environments support coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangrove and kelp forests, and the many species inhabiting those ecosystems. Their beaches, foreshores, permafrost, and rocky cliffs are host to a myriad of cultural and social activities, promoting health and well-being in the local community (Nicu et al., Reference Nicu, Rubensdotter, Stalsberg and Nau2021; Satariano, Reference Satariano2021). Coasts are also at the forefront of tourism, real estate, and international trade. However, sometimes the importance of these ecosystems and our heavy reliance on them means that we may be loving our coasts to death.

Heavy reliance on any resource will inevitably place pressures upon it. In coastal ecosystems, we see the compounding effects of primary anthropogenic pressures with secondary impacts related to climate change. In fact, Williams et al. (Reference Williams, Watson, Beyer, Klein, Montgomery, Runting, Roberson, Halpern, Grantham, Kuempel, Frazier, Venter and Wenger2021) suggest that only 15.5% of global coastlines have low levels of human pressure and that more than 50% of most countries’ coasts are degraded. This degradation may take the form of shoreline change (including erosion and deposition) (Splinter and Coco, Reference Splinter and Coco2021); sea level rise (Cazenave et al., Reference Cazenave, Palanisamy and Ablain2018); impacts from natural disasters such as cyclones (Fabricius et al., Reference Fabricius, De’ath, Puotinen, Done, Cooper and Burgess2008), earthquakes (Hart et al., Reference Hart, Pitman and Byun2020); tsunamis (Marras and Mandli, Reference Marras and Mandli2021); increased runoff and pollution (Kroon et al., Reference Kroon, Thorburn, Schaffelke and Whitten2016); as well as the presence of marine debris (Olivelli et al., Reference Olivelli, Hardesty and Wilcox2020). Yet in spite of – or perhaps because of – the significant challenges faced in coastal regions, they remain areas of population growth and connection, with considerable opportunities for building sustainable lives and livelihoods into the future.

Of the many exciting opportunities for and with coastal ecosystems, many focus on innovations that will hopefully result in greater quality of life for their local communities. These opportunities are generally linked to deriving greater benefit from the vast number of ecosystem services that coastal regions are recognized as providing (Heckwolf et al., Reference Heckwolf, Peterson, Jänes, Horne, Künne, Liversage, Sajeva, Reusch and Kotta2021). For example, mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass ecosystems have become the foundation of blue carbon economies (Bertram et al., Reference Bertram, Quaas, Reusch, Vafeidis, Wolff and Rickels2021), while permafrost-rich Arctic coastlines store >1,300 Pg of organic carbon, Earth’s largest terrestrial carbon sink for centuries (Tanski et al., Reference Tanski, Bröder, Wagner, Knoblauch, Lantuit, Beer, Sachs, Fritz, Tesi, Koch, Haghipour, Eglinton, Strauss and Vonk2021). There is enormous potential to incorporate innovative engineering, urban planning, and policy frameworks to assist vulnerable coastal communities facing the impacts of climate change, particularly in developing countries with the greatest need for adaptation strategies (Le, Reference Le2020). We also acknowledge that there is a growing need for cross-cultural comanagement to recognize the value First Nations people bring in understanding coastal systems (Ireland, Reference Ireland2021) and how traditional practices can enhance and sustain local industries such as aquaculture and fisheries (Anbleyth-Evans et al., Reference Anbleyth-Evans, Hiriart-Bertrand, Leiva, Iwama and Henriquez-Antipa2022). To determine the enduring benefit of responding to such opportunities, and to discover new opportunities, it is critical to ensure the ecosystems are appropriately monitored and to allow management intervention to be triggered if and when required.

Remote sensing technologies have supported coastal management practices by providing baseline and ongoing monitoring data for decades (Splinter et al., Reference Splinter, Harley and Turner2018; Román-Rivera and Ellis, Reference Román-Rivera and Ellis2019; Kennedy et al., Reference Kennedy, Roelfsema, Lyons, Kovacs, Borrego-Acevedo, Roe, Phinn, Larsen, Murray, Yuwono, Wolff and Tudman2021). In addition to the many freely available optical satellite datasets (e.g., Landsat and Sentinel), increasing opportunities are arising to incorporate high-fidelity aerial drone imagery into mapping, modeling, monitoring, and management routines (Joyce et al., Reference Joyce, Duce, Leahy, Leon and Maier2018). With more than five million drones shipped globally in 2020 alone (Laricchia, Reference Laricchia2022), there are more drones in circulation than kilometers of coastline around the world. It is therefore timely to document some of the most exciting trends in drone data collection in coastal ecosystems.

Drone applications in coastal ecosystems

To situate this review in the recent literature (past 10 years), we conducted a systematic search of published and in press peer-reviewed journal articles using the Scopus database. We included all articles with the following words contained within their abstract, keywords, or title:

  1. 1. “Coast*” (wildcard used to include coasts, coastline, coastal); AND

  2. 2. “Drone*” (wildcard used to include plural); OR

  3. 3. “Unmanned” or “uncrewed” or “unoccupied” or “remotely piloted” “a*” (wildcard used to include aircraft or aerial, rather than underwater).

This returned 778 articles at the time of searching in May 2022. For reference, the same search conducted for “drone” (or variants of this word as above) without including “coast*” returned 32,846 articles. Thus the coastal research and application component represents approximately 2% of the broader discipline. The coastal drone research publications have been derived from a diverse 78 countries, though more than 50% originate from just four countries: the United States (n = 199), China (n = 74), Italy (n = 69), and Australia (n = 68) as determined by first author location. Note that this does not necessarily indicate the study site location.

Evaluating the keywords as nominated by the authors (Figure 1) reveals that the most common applications for using drones in coastal environments include for erosion (n = 85); animals (n = 54); environmental monitoring (n = 50); landforms (n = 45); and vegetation (n = 44). There is a clear clustering of words associated with photogrammetry including structure from motion (n = 56); digital elevation model (n = 62); Digital Terrain Model (n = 16); and 3D modeling (n = 11). Many of these terms are likely to also be associated with the coastal erosion theme as they provide supporting data or products to evaluate morphology, erosion, and deposition.

Figure 1. Keywords within peer reviewed articles related to coastal drone applications. Size of the word or phrase is relative to the number of papers using that term within their keywords, i.e. larger words indicate a higher frequency of use. Note also the movement towards using gender neutral language and favouring ‘uncrewed’ or ‘unoccupied’ rather than ‘unmanned’ (Joyce et al., Reference Joyce, Anderson and Bartolo2021) will see a change in the prevalence of these search terms in the near future.

Using a subset of the literature extracted from that identified in the above meta-analysis, combined with more specific searches, the following sections delve deeper into the unique value proposition that aerial drones offer as data collection tools specifically for mapping coastal ecosystems.

Why are drones so well-suited for coastal applications?

Notwithstanding the significant value that satellite and other airborne based (such as balloons and aircrafts) remote sensing offers for monitoring coastal ecosystems, aerial drones as a data collection platform have a unique value proposition. With a platform significantly closer to the features of interest (typically less than 120 m or 400 ft compared to several thousand feet for traditional survey aircraft and hundreds of kilometers for a satellite), drones capture imagery at least an order of magnitude higher in spatial resolution (<5 cm) than achievable with traditional survey and commercial satellites (between 30 cm to >1 km). This is of particular importance in narrow coastal zones where the features to be monitored are often small and heterogeneous (Figure 2a). Drones can also be used to model the three-dimensional structure of coastal ecosystems and their components using structure from motion (SfM) photogrammetry software (Figure 2b; Casella et al., Reference Casella, Rovere, Pedroncini, Mucerino, Casella, Cusati, Vacchi, Ferrari and Firpo2014, Reference Casella, Rovere, Pedroncini, Stark, Casella, Ferrari and Firpo2016, Reference Casella, Collin, Harris, Ferse, Bejarano, Parravicini, Hench and Rovere2017, Reference Casella, Drechsel, Winter, Benninghoff and Rovere2020; Lowe et al., Reference Lowe, Adnan, Hamylton, Carvalho and Woodroffe2019). For instance, drone-collected high-resolution orthomosaics and digital terrain models (DTMs) enable improved characterization of dynamic landscapes and volumetric changes such as those experienced by coastal systems after a storm or urban development (see Lowe et al., Reference Lowe, Adnan, Hamylton, Carvalho and Woodroffe2019). Further, aligning the ideal tide with optimal sun angle and environmental conditions creates a narrow window of opportunity appropriate for capturing mapping data, often not achievable with satellites, but possible with drones (Joyce et al., Reference Joyce, Duce, Leahy, Leon and Maier2018; Figure 2c). Drones are therefore flexible in terms of the types of data they can capture, as well as the ways in which they can be used. It is this very flexibility that has contributed to the wide uptake of drones as democratizing technology for remote sensing and mapping more broadly. Given the high density of population along our coastlines (e.g., Figure 2d), there are more than enough people and drones to capture their stories. The ability of drones to address the combination of spatial heterogeneity, structural complexity, temporal dynamics, and population hubs makes them truly valuable as data collection tools in coastal environments.

Figure 2. a) Spatial heterogeneity at various scales demonstrating that a small area can cover many different features and microhabitats (Joyce, Reference Joyce2020); b) Structural complexity of a rocky and sandy coastline seen in a digital terrain model (DTM) constructed using drone imagery (Joyce, 2019); c) Dynamic tidal flows and shifting coastal sands following a large storm event (Joyce, Reference Joyce2021); and d) Many lives and livelihoods are supported in this densely populated Indonesian coastal town (Nugroho, Reference Nugroho2016).

Coastal ecosystems are spatially heterogeneous

From individual corals to entire shorelines, coastal ecosystems vary widely in their spatial scale and heterogeneity both within the broader coastal zone (i.e., landscape heterogeneity) and within ecosystems (e.g., species diversity). The ability to dynamically scale both spectral and spatial resolutions in a way that coarser-scale satellite sensors cannot, makes drones an ideal technology to capture variability within the coastal zone.

Among the most endangered ecosystems on the planet due to climate change (Hughes et al., Reference Hughes, Baird, Bellwood, Card, Connolly, Folke, Grosberg, Hoegh-Guldberg, Jackson, Kleypas, Lough, Marshall, Nyström, Palumbi, Pandolfi, Rosen and Roughgarden2003), coral reefs hold tremendous biodiversity (Plaisance et al., Reference Plaisance, Caley, Brainard and Knowlton2011) and the spatial complexity of these habitats can indicate such diversity (Richards, Reference Richards2013). Mapping and monitoring coral reef heterogeneity with remote sensing technology helps enable informed management action at fine spatial scales (Roelfsema et al., Reference Roelfsema, Phinn, Jupiter, Comley and Albert2013; Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Younes and Joyce2020; Nolan et al., Reference Nolan, Kim, Hoegh-Guldberg and Beger2021). For example, Bennett et al. (Reference Bennett, Younes and Joyce2020) used drone-collected red, green, and blue (RGB) imagery to identify and classify coral reefs at a 0.5 cm spatial scale in the southern Great Barrier Reef, allowing insight into the spatial distribution of coral habitat features, and in particular identifying live coral. This level of detail is not possible with satellite data where the inherent heterogeneity occurs at a subpixel level.

Similar to coral reefs, high levels of accuracy and precision in mapping seagrass meadows and kelp forests have been difficult to achieve with satellite imagery due to the complex mixture of both aquatic and vegetative spectra and timing of image capture (O’Neill and Costa, Reference O’Neill and Costa2013; Reshitnyk et al., Reference Reshitnyk, Costa, Robinson and Dearden2014; Cavanaugh et al., Reference Cavanaugh, Cavanaugh, Bell and Hockridge2021; Mora-Soto et al., Reference Mora-Soto, Capsey, Friedlander, Palacios, Brewin, Golding, Dayton, Van Tussenbroek, Montiel, Goodell, Velasco-Charpentier, Hart, Macaya, Pérez-Matus and Macias-Fauria2021). However, drones have allowed researchers to more accurately map these ecosystems with increased spatial resolution and explore how biotic and abiotic environmental variability influences classification (Nahirnick et al., Reference Nahirnick, Reshitnyk, Campbell, Hessing-Lewis, Costa, Yakimishyn and Lee2019).

Augmented by the increased spatial resolution drones provide, advanced classification techniques, such as machine and deep learning also add enhanced contextual information (Hamylton et al., Reference Hamylton, Morris, Carvalho, Roder, Barlow, Mills and Wang2020a), including mapping down to the individual organism level in sea cucumber populations (Li et al., Reference Li, Duce, Joyce and Xiang2021). When increasing spatial resolution alone is not enough to map and monitor heterogeneous coastal ecosystem features, advanced data types such as hyperspectral (Cornet and Joyce, Reference Cornet and Joyce2021; Jaud et al., Reference Jaud, Sicot, Brunier, Michaud, Le Dantec, Ammann, Grandjean, Launeau, Thouzeau, Fleury and Delacourt2021) and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) (Kramer et al., Reference Kramer, Mücher and van der Hagen2021) can be employed and are especially useful on drones due to their cost reduction and advances in sensor miniaturization in current technology.

Coastal ecosystems are structurally complex

In coastal ecosystems, fine-scale, three-dimensional structural variability can act as an indicator for ecosystem health (Rombouts et al., Reference Rombouts, Beaugrand, Artigas, Dauvin, Gevaert, Goberville, Kopp, Lefebvre, Luczak, Spilmont, Travers-Trolet, Villanueva and Kirby2013), restoration success (Levin and Talley, Reference Levin and Talley2002), and vulnerability to climate hazards (van Loon-Steensma et al., Reference van Loon-Steensma, Hu and Slim2016). In salt marshes, for example, both landscape and individual vegetation structures are important parameters in assessing condition (Morzaria-Luna et al., Reference Morzaria-Luna, Callaway, Sullivan and Zedler2004). As a low-cost way to measure salt marsh structure, DiGiacomo et al. (Reference DiGiacomo, Bird, Pan, Dobroski, Atkins-Davis, Johnston and Ridge2020) found that combining multispectral drone imagery with SfM modeling, achieved similar accuracy and higher consistency when compared to higher-cost, crewed LiDAR data of vegetation height predictions in coastal salt marsh sites and with significantly finer spatial resolution compared to satellite imagery. From measures of structure through drone-collected data, biophysical parameters (e.g., biomass) can then also be quantified (Doughty and Cavanaugh, Reference Doughty and Cavanaugh2019). These techniques also scale up forested wetlands, such as the coastal swamp oak forest (Conroy et al., Reference Conroy, Hamylton, Kumbier and Kelleway2022) and mangroves (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Raja Segaran, Clarke, Waycott, Goh and Gillanders2020). Scaling down from wetlands, with increased spatial resolution drones can also help map the structure of fine-scale features and ecosystems such as coral reefs (Casella et al., Reference Casella, Collin, Harris, Ferse, Bejarano, Parravicini, Hench and Rovere2017, Reference Casella, Lewin, Ghilardi, Rovere and Bejarano2022) and oyster reefs (Windle et al., Reference Windle, Puckett, Huebert, Knorek, Johnston and Ridge2022).

In addition to mapping ecological features, drone mapping images can be processed using SfM photogrammetry techniques to build digital terrain models (DTMs) and digital surface models (DSMs). This enables fine-scale, three-dimensional information to help map abiotic features in coastal systems both on land and underwater (Casella et al., Reference Casella, Drechsel, Winter, Benninghoff and Rovere2020; Alevizos and Alexakis, Reference Alevizos and Alexakis2022; Kreij et al., Reference Kreij, Scriffignano, Rosendahl, Nagel and Ulm2018), including tracking topographic change over time (Casella et al., Reference Casella, Rovere, Pedroncini, Stark, Casella, Ferrari and Firpo2016; Lowe et al., Reference Lowe, Adnan, Hamylton, Carvalho and Woodroffe2019; Volpano et al., Reference Volpano, Zoet, Elmo Rawling and Theuerkauf2022). Combining the digital elevation models (DSM or DTM) with an RGB orthomosaic of the region provides a unique perspective of coastal ecosystems that is simpler and more cost-effective to create than using more traditional aerial survey and satellite techniques.

Coastal ecosystems are temporally dynamic

Coastal ecosystems are the nexus between the world’s terrestrial landscapes and the open ocean and therefore subject to the dynamics of upland and upstream processes as well as offshore oceanic drivers. Situated in a transitional ecological matrix, coastal ecosystems often experience fine-scale temporal variability ranging from hourly and daily tidal regimes or real-time emergency hazards, such as tsunamis and storm surges originating offshore, to water quality emergencies that emerge from adjacent urban or freshwater areas. With their ability to be deployed near-instantaneously and with greater flexibility, drones are an excellent resource to document time-sensitive processes in coastal zones (Hart et al., Reference Hart, Pitman and Byun2020). Using drones, researchers, scientists, and local resource managers are able to capture data when and where they need. For example, to monitor intertidal reefs, Murfitt et al. (Reference Murfitt, Allan, Bellgrove, Rattray, Young and Ierodiaconou2017) chose to collect imagery exclusively during low tide to increase the spatial area of the exposed intertidal reef; a temporal versatility not afforded by the majority of satellite sensors. Similar flexibility also allows for better control over environmental parameters that introduce noise into spectral reflectance measurements such as clouds, which can be a particular problem for optical satellite sensors in temporally sensitive ecosystems (Whitcraft et al., Reference Whitcraft, Vermote, Becker-Reshef and Justice2015), and sun glint (Nahirnick et al., Reference Nahirnick, Reshitnyk, Campbell, Hessing-Lewis, Costa, Yakimishyn and Lee2019; Giles et al., Reference Giles, Davies, Ren and Kelaher2021; Windle and Silsbe, Reference Windle and Silsbe2021).

In temperate regions, permafrost thawing has caused rapid shifts in Arctic coastlines, mobilizing large amounts of sediments, organic matter, and nutrients from the permafrost (Wegner et al., Reference Wegner, Bennett, Vernal, de Forwick, Fritz, Heikkilä, Łacka, Lantuit, Laska, Moskalik, O’Regan, Pawłowska, Promińska, Rachold, Vonk and Werner2015). Optical satellite image coverage in high-latitude regions has been historically limited to coarse temporal and spatial resolution. Instead, frequent use of lightweight drones coupled with image-based modeling in such environments has allowed land managers to self-service their data needs, providing timely information on rapidly changing features (Cunliffe et al., Reference Cunliffe, Tanski, Radosavljevic, Palmer, Sachs, Lantuit, Kerby and Myers-Smith2019). In challenging environments, researchers and practitioners are turning to drones to meet their time-sensitive data acquisition needs.

In time-sensitive coastal emergencies, drones can be deployed instantaneously to aid in activities like aquatic search and rescue (Burke et al., Reference Burke, McWhirter, Veitch-Michaelis, McAree, Pointon, Wich and Longmore2019; Del-Real and Díaz-Fernández, Reference Del-Real and Díaz-Fernández2021), sharks tracking for coastal recreation risk assessment (Stokes et al., Reference Stokes, Apps, Butcher, Weiler, Luke and Colefax2020), or monitoring water quality emergencies such as oil spills and harmful algal blooms (Filippi et al., Reference Filippi, Hanlon, Rypina, Hodges, Peacock and Schmale2021; Windle and Silsbe, Reference Windle and Silsbe2021). As these emergencies dynamically unfold, drones are ideally suited to capture relevant data, allowing relevant authorities to act on timely data-driven decisions. Drones, therefore, provide support to first responders by uniquely providing time-sensitive data in dynamic situations.

Coastal ecosystems support many lives and livelihoods

An estimated 600+ million people live within 10 m of sea level (Neumann et al., Reference Neumann, Vafeidis, Zimmermann and Nicholls2015) placing both tremendous pressure as well as value on coastal ecosystems. As the hub of many population centers and travel destinations, this means that coasts also provide a critical mass of people with the ability to undertake grassroots monitoring of their local environments. This can take place within independent groups, or supported by a variety of citizen science initiatives that are popular in easily accessible locations (Kelly et al., Reference Kelly, Fleming, Pecl, von Gönner and Bonn2020). Thus coastal regions hold a combination of a suitably sized population base to support activated and environmentally conscious citizens with readily accessible drone technology that is ideally suited to address coastal challenges.

Understanding that drones allow people to take remote sensing and mapping into their own hands, it would be remiss of our review to exclude the applications absent from – and perhaps rarely captured – within the peer-reviewed literature. For example, many First Nations groups are using drones as part of their standard practice to monitor and manage their land and sea country. Most First Nations drone experiences occurred since 2014 and were often located in developing countries, particularly South and Central America (Vargas-Ramírez and Paneque-Gálvez, Reference Vargas-Ramírez and Paneque-Gálvez2019). They are typically using drones for coastal erosion, damage caused by feral animals and development, documenting sites of significant cultural heritage, weeds, habitat mapping, and fire monitoring.

Drones have also been used to help Indigenous communities assess the risk from climate change and mapping land ownership. For example, the Guna, an Indigenous people who live along the Panamanian coast, are facing rapid land loss due to sea level rise. They used drones to identify targets for the potential relocation of their homes. In Cebu Province, Philippines in 2016, several communities used multirotor drones to formalize land ownership rights by facilitating the identification of plots and resolving local disputes related to the property (Pablo and Petzold, Reference Pablo and Petzold2016). Many of these applications have been identified above as well-suited to drone technology, and local Ranger networks are now using the technology as part of their standard operations. The democratizing nature of drone technology is therefore returning power to these groups to document landscapes from their point of view.

Personnel within the military are also less likely to contribute in great detail to the peer-reviewed literature, but still hold considerable infrastructure and expertise related to coastal applications of drones. Relevant military operations are often focused on developing situational awareness associated with the littoral zone as a subset of the coastal environment. Drones are ideally suited to capturing data in this narrow region on a rapid and as-needs basis. They also have the added benefit of providing sovereign data suitable for creating highly detailed digital elevation and slope models to inform troop and vehicular movement plans.

What are the challenges with using drones?

Throughout this review, we have discussed how drone-based remote sensing offers significant possibilities to acquire data for coastal applications in a fast and relatively cost-effective way. Yet as with all technology, drones are not necessarily the ideal solution under all scenarios. They come with their own range of challenges that we encourage readers to consider prior to building a drone capability. Paradoxically, the very benefits presented above can also be the real challenges in their uptake. We present these considerations within three categories based on logistics, finance, and expertise.

Drone data capture is not always simple

While capturing data is often not a challenge, capturing analysis-suitable data requires drone operators to be cognisant of a range of environmental and logistical challenges. For example, local regulations vary and often require consultation with aviation authorities, governments and councils, and Indigenous land custodians. The legislation, licensing, and compliance requirements continue to change and in many cases are not transferable across jurisdictions. Following approvals to operate, as with most passive remote sensing, the quality of drone data is highly dependent on the local weather conditions. Specific to coastal ecosystems, Duffy et al. (Reference Duffy, Cunliffe, DeBell, Sandbrook, Wich, Shutler, Myers-Smith, Varela and Anderson2018) note that drones are sensitive to complex sea breezes and salt spray, while tides and changing water levels can mean that finding suitable take-off and landing sites is difficult. The effects of the long-standing challenge with sunglint when imaging over water bodies (Duffy et al., Reference Duffy, Cunliffe, DeBell, Sandbrook, Wich, Shutler, Myers-Smith, Varela and Anderson2018; Joyce et al., Reference Joyce, Duce, Leahy, Leon and Maier2018; Giles et al., Reference Giles, Davies, Ren and Kelaher2021) is also amplified in high spatial resolution imagery such as that captured by a drone. Coarser resolution satellite imagery tends to smooth out sunglint effects, however, they are clearly apparent in drone imagery, acting to obscure or distort subsurface features. Careful timing and planning can reduce the impact of these complications on resultant data.

Thorough planning is also necessary to ensure adequate site coverage. While drones can cover a greater area than in situ field survey (in the order of several hectares rather than m2), they are still limited by the operator’s ability to keep the drone within line of sight (regulation requirement), and the drone battery life. Although battery technology is constantly improving, flight durations for the most readily available consumer drones are typically limited to <40 min (or longer for fixed-wing platforms). To increase the area coverage within that time, the operator can choose to fly at a higher altitude (usually limited by the regulations of up to 400 ft, or 120 m), but will compromise the spatial detail in doing so. Thus drones are often better suited to local scale mapping and monitoring rather than regional or national programs.

Drones are not always a cheap alternative

It is imperative to consider the full scope of the project and data needs before estimating the budgetary requirements for building a drone capability. While the initial outlay for a drone platform with mapping capabilities might be as low as US$500, large and more advanced platforms are found in the order of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, incorporating advanced sensors such as those equipped with hyperspectral, LiDAR, or thermal capabilities will further increase the cost of acquisition, sometimes well over $100,000. Alongside the hardware costs, annual software license fees for data processing and storage solutions need to be taken into account. There are however open-source options for data processing, and cloud storage is constantly reducing in price.

Drone data does not equate to knowledge

The number of research papers referenced in this review alone attests to the many diverse challenges in translating drone data into knowledge and actionable insights. From the variety of software packages and number of parameters to consider even in the preprocessing stages of photogrammetry (Pell et al., Reference Pell, Li and Joyce2022), deriving analysis-ready data such as orthomosaics and digital elevation models is not always a simple process. After conducting the initial processing, users need to develop skills in manipulating large volumes of data, building reliable and reproducible workflows, and translating downstream products to communicate their meaning. Data capture therefore often becomes the simplest aspect of a workflow while operationalizing the opportunity of drones and meaningful insights present the real challenge.

Future perspectives for using drones in coastal ecosystems

After reflecting on the status of using aerial drones as data collection tools in coastal environments, there have been significant advances in the past five years. This is the period where peer-reviewed publications on the topic started to grow considerably. So, while it may be difficult to forecast the future of the technology given the rate of growth, there are some clear emerging trends that will generate exciting applications and new perspectives for coastal ecosystems over the next five years. Our understanding of the various coastal features and processes currently targeted for mapping will benefit from a variety of drone and technology enablers (Figure 3). We consider these key enablers below within the context of our four grounding statements, being that coastal ecosystems are spatially heterogeneous; are structurally complex; have fine-scale temporal dynamics; and support many lives and livelihoods.

Figure 3. Range of coastal features and processes currently targeted for mapping activities as key indicators of ecosystem health, surrounded by the drone and associated technology components identified as significant enablers of future directions in understanding coastal ecosystems.

Spatial heterogeneity at all scales remains a challenge, but also provides many opportunities for technology development in coastal ecosystems. While camera systems are generally well-suited to capture heterogeneity, we will continue to see higher quality sensor systems including those with multispectral and hyperspectral capabilities penetrate the market due to consumer demand. However, the greatest growth trajectory lies in developing software and algorithms to process these data in a timely manner. With increasing data resolution (spatial, spectral, temporal domains), manual interpretation will no longer be an option. The ability to ingest and fuse large volumes of data, in combination with machine and deep learning analytics will be instrumental in making informed decisions in coastal ecosystems.

As climate change models predict we could lose up to half of the world’s sandy beaches by the end of this century (Vousdoukas et al., Reference Vousdoukas, Ranasinghe, Mentaschi, Plomaritis, Athanasiou, Luijendijk and Feyen2020), and erosion rates are exacerbated along Arctic coastal landscapes with shrinking ice cover, storm surge effects, and thawing permafrost (Irrgang et al., Reference Irrgang, Lantuit, Gordon, Piskor and Manson2019), the onus is on scientists, environmental managers, and policymakers to ensure we are making the right data-driven decisions for communities affected. Three-dimensional models of topography are a fundamental component of this supporting data. While drones already enable us to capture much-needed information to document structural and morphological changes along coastlines (Splinter et al., Reference Splinter, Harley and Turner2018; Lowe et al., Reference Lowe, Adnan, Hamylton, Carvalho and Woodroffe2019; Hamylton et al., Reference Hamylton, Nurdin, Carvalho, Jompa, Akbar, Fitrah, Lanuru and Amri2020b), the sensors acquiring these data are becoming more sophisticated and accurate. General consumers are already able to enjoy LiDAR technology in some of the latest handheld mobile devices, so it is likely that this miniaturized level of technology will become available on drone platforms as well, replacing some of the heavier equipment currently available. This will greatly supplement photogrammetry software techniques that are commonly used for generating 3D models, but are limited by vegetation cover. Real-time kinematic (RTK) global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) have also started to move into the consumer-grade drones, enhancing the positional accuracy of captured imagery. As that becomes more widespread, digital elevation models will have significantly higher levels of accuracy in x–y–z domains which are critical to accurately document shoreline changes.

However, thoroughly understanding shoreline change requires more than 3D information. Here, frequent and repeated data capture becomes a fundamental component to document and predict change. This is where the growth of the drone market comes in. Current projections suggest there may be a fourfold increase in the drone market by the end of the decade, placing many more drones in circulation for both personal and commercial use. This opens opportunities for increased frequency of data capture.

Yet many drone operators capturing data still may not create the transformative change possible in monitoring fine-scale coastal dynamics. Instead, the growing number of operational drones (e.g., delivery platforms) equipped with sensors that can also capture timely mapping data as a secondary purpose is an even larger market opportunity. These platforms are long-range, can fly beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS), and spend extended periods in the air. This means that they can cover vast areas and capture huge amounts of data in a near continuous manner. Coupling this technology with what has been termed “drone in a box” solutions placed in strategic coastal locations of interest, the future of coastal monitoring with drones becomes increasingly autonomous.

As we capture significantly more data, we must also look to the opportunities for data storage, autonomous data processing, and data or information sharing. Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, and Google compete strongly for dominance in cloud storage and processing services, and the rise of Google Earth Engine, Microsoft Planetary Computer, and associated applications has helped process and reprocess vast quantities of open satellite remote sensing data. As developers create new web and mobile applications off the back of these services, this opens opportunities for coastal managers and decision-makers to derive insights from remote sensing data without needing to conduct the analysis themselves (Dinerstein et al., Reference Dinerstein, Joshi, Vynne, Lee, Pharand-Deschênes, França, Fernando, Birch, Burkart, Asner and Olson2020). With drone data considered relatively new to the portfolio of remote sensing options, processing data and delivering information in this manner is currently in its infancy and being tested by early adopters (e.g., Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Younes and Joyce2020). Developing and operationalizing these types of applications with robust artificial intelligence algorithms tuned to and driven by drone data will result in even greater uptake in drone technology in coastal ecosystems. The future of interacting with drone data in this manner will be available on the cloud, with hybrid cloud, or edge computing solutions, resulting in rapid information flow to the people and systems needing it most.

Although we may head toward greater autonomy, we must not underestimate the role of people and community. We have seen how drones have become democratizing technology that is readily available to communities around the world, even in highly regional and remote areas (Vargas-Ramírez and Paneque-Gálvez, Reference Vargas-Ramírez and Paneque-Gálvez2019; Colloredo-Mansfeld et al., Reference Colloredo-Mansfeld, Laso and Arce-Nazario2020; Álvarez Larrain et al., Reference Álvarez Larrain, Greco and Tarragó2021). In 2017, communities in the Maabaidhoo Island, Maldives, used multirotor drones to better prepare for challenges posed by climate change, by identifying eroded coastlines, developing risk maps, and restoring coral reef systems and mangroves (United Nations Development Programme, 2017). Coupled with a groundswell of interest in citizen science activities and community-led initiatives (Hecker et al., Reference Hecker, Haklay, Bowser, Makuch, Vogel and Bonn2018), drones and their data support people taking action in their local areas aligned with ecosystems they are passionate about (Colloredo-Mansfeld et al., Reference Colloredo-Mansfeld, Laso and Arce-Nazario2020; Merlino et al., Reference Merlino, Paterni, Locritani, Andriolo, Gonçalves and Massetti2021; Bunting et al., Reference Bunting, Theuerkauf, Rabins, Konsoer, Leitner and Lewis2022; Theuerkauf et al., Reference Theuerkauf, Bunting, Mack and Rabins2022). In 2022, Indigenous community members from the Hudson and James Bay Lowlands in northern Ontario, Canada were trained to use drones to document land use change across their respective communities. Encouraging and supporting these activities will promote sustainability, comanagement, and equitable decision-making about coastal ecosystems, by those who rely directly on them (Bax et al., Reference Bax, Novaglio, Maxwell, Meyers, McCann, Jennings, Frusher, Fulton, Nursey-Bray, Fischer, Anderson, Layton, Emad, Alexander, Rousseau, Lunn and Carter2022), while grounding data collection in FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles will ensure the broader community can leverage these efforts.

Further, we must look to the role of First Nations people – in particular women – for their critical contributions in achieving sustainable, inclusive development, and climate resilience (Löw, Reference Löw2020; Hale et al., Reference Hale, Gerhardt, Day and Heron2022; Kandrot et al., Reference Kandrot, Hayes and Holloway2022) in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. An example of this is found in Guyana, South America where drones are used by Indigenous girls to map and monitor carbon stocks of mangroves for potential conservation designation near their community (Persaud, Reference Persaud2021). Given the importance of diversity in mapping and the considerable concerns of embedded biases if this is not taken into account (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Mooney, De Sabbata and Dowthwaite2020; Hsu et al., Reference Hsu, Pruckner, Satterthwaite, Weatherdon, Hadley and Nguyen2021), we cannot afford to disregard wide-ranging viewpoints and participation in mapping. Maintaining and enhancing practices of technology transfer from research to operational, and from areas of privilege to underserved communities will bring entirely new ways to work with coastal environments for enhanced lives and livelihoods in the future.

Conclusion

Global climate models predict that our coastal areas are facing challenging times ahead. We can either balk at these challenges or embrace the opportunities that arise as a consequence. Our review has clearly demonstrated that we have the people and technology projections to embrace innovations and provide new solutions to coastal ecosystem challenges. In the inevitably changing future, coasts will remain spatially heterogeneous, structurally complex, temporally dynamic, and supportive of many lives and livelihoods. We offer here that drones have a unique value proposition in monitoring and managing these multidimensional complexities for future sustainability. Supported by scalable analytics as well as cloud and edge infrastructure, drones will continue to play a role as data collection tools in monitoring and managing coastal ecosystems until such time that the next great technological advancement makes them obsolete.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (K.E.J.) upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

Icons used to create Figure 3 courtesy Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/media-library).

Author contributions

All authors have contributed substantially to every aspect of conceptualizing, researching, reviewing, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest

The authors declare none.

References

Alevizos, E and Alexakis, D (2022) Monitoring Seasonal Morphobathymetric Change of Nearshore Seafloor Using Drone-Based Multispectral Imagery. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202207.0438.v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Álvarez Larrain, A, Greco, C and Tarragó, M (2021) Participatory mapping and UAV photogrammetry as complementary techniques for landscape archaeology studies: An example from North-Western Argentina. Archaeological Prospection 28(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anbleyth-Evans, J, Hiriart-Bertrand, L, Leiva, FA, Iwama, AY and Henriquez-Antipa, L (2022) Enhancing Bio-Cultural Management in Indigenous Marine Areas in Chile. SSRN Scholarly Paper 4088782. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4088782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bax, N, Novaglio, C, Maxwell, KH, Meyers, K, McCann, J, Jennings, S, Frusher, S, Fulton, EA, Nursey-Bray, M, Fischer, M, Anderson, K, Layton, C, Emad, GR, Alexander, KA, Rousseau, Y, Lunn, Z and Carter, CG (2022) Ocean resource use: Building the coastal blue economy. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 32(1), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09636-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, MK, Younes, N and Joyce, K (2020) Automating drone image processing to map coral reef substrates using Google earth engine. Drones 4(3), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones4030050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, C, Quaas, M, Reusch, TBH, Vafeidis, AT, Wolff, C and Rickels, W (2021) The blue carbon wealth of nations. Nature Climate Change 11(8), 704–709. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01089-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, EL, Theuerkauf, EJ and Rabins, L (2022) sUAS-based citizen science studies in Geography. In Konsoer, K, Leitner, M and Lewis, Q (eds), sUAS Applications in Geography. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Geotechnologies and the Environment), pp. 41–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01976-0_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, C, McWhirter, PR, Veitch-Michaelis, J, McAree, O, Pointon, HAG, Wich, S and Longmore, S (2019) Requirements and limitations of thermal drones for effective search and rescue in marine and coastal areas. Drones 3(4), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones3040078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, E, Collin, A, Harris, D, Ferse, S, Bejarano, S, Parravicini, V, Hench, JL and Rovere, A (2017) Mapping coral reefs using consumer-grade drones and structure from motion photogrammetry techniques. Coral Reefs 36(1), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-016-1522-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, E, Drechsel, J, Winter, C, Benninghoff, M and Rovere, A (2020) Accuracy of sand beach topography surveying by drones and photogrammetry. Geo-Marine Letters 40, 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-020-00638-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, E, Lewin, P, Ghilardi, M, Rovere, A and Bejarano, S (2022) Assessing the Relative Accuracy of Coral Heights Reconstructed from Drones and Structure from Motion Photogrammetry on Coral Reefs. Coral Reefs [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-022-02244-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, E, Rovere, A, Pedroncini, A, Mucerino, L, Casella, M, Cusati, LA, Vacchi, M, Ferrari, M and Firpo, M (2014) Study of wave runup using numerical models and low-altitude aerial photogrammetry: A tool for coastal management. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 149, 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.08.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, E, Rovere, A, Pedroncini, A, Stark, CP, Casella, M, Ferrari, M and Firpo, M (2016) Drones as tools for monitoring beach topography changes in the Ligurian Sea (NW Mediterranean). Geo-Marine Letters 36(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-016-0435-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanaugh, KC, Cavanaugh, KC, Bell, TW and Hockridge, EG (2021) An automated method for mapping giant kelp canopy dynamics from UAV Frontiers in Environmental Science 8, 1831937. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenvs.2020.587354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazenave, A, Palanisamy, H and Ablain, M (2018) Contemporary Sea level changes from satellite altimetry: What have we learned? What are the new challenges? Advances in Space Research 62(7), 1639–1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2018.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colloredo-Mansfeld, M, Laso, FJ and Arce-Nazario, J (2020) Drone-based participatory mapping: Examining local agricultural knowledge in the Galapagos. Drones 4(4), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones4040062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, BM, Hamylton, SM, Kumbier, K and Kelleway, JJ (2022) Assessing the structure of coastal forested wetland using field and remote sensing data. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 271, 107861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2022.107861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornet, VJ and Joyce, KE (2021) Assessing the potential of remotely-sensed drone spectroscopy to determine live coral cover on heron reef. Drones 5(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones5020029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, AM, Tanski, G, Radosavljevic, B, Palmer, WF, Sachs, T, Lantuit, H, Kerby, JT and Myers-Smith, IH (2019) Rapid retreat of permafrost coastline observed with aerial drone photogrammetry. The Cryosphere 13(5), 1513–1528. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-1513-2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del-Real, C and Díaz-Fernández, AM (2021) Lifeguards in the sky: Examining the public acceptance of beach-rescue drones. Technology in Society 64, 101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiGiacomo, AE, Bird, CN, Pan, VG, Dobroski, K, Atkins-Davis, C, Johnston, DW and Ridge, JT (2020) Modeling salt marsh vegetation height using unoccupied aircraft systems and structure from motion. Remote Sensing 12(14), 2333. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12142333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinerstein, E, Joshi, AR, Vynne, C, Lee, ATL, Pharand-Deschênes, F, França, M, Fernando, S, Birch, T, Burkart, K, Asner, GP and Olson, D (2020) A “global safety net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Science Advances 6(36), eabb2824. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb2824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, CL and Cavanaugh, KC (2019) Mapping coastal wetland biomass from high resolution unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery. Remote Sensing 11(5), 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11050540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, JP, Cunliffe, AM, DeBell, L, Sandbrook, C, Wich, SA, Shutler, JD, Myers-Smith, IH, Varela, MR and Anderson, K (2018) Location, location, location: Considerations when using lightweight drones in challenging environments. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 4(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, KE, De’ath, G, Puotinen, ML, Done, T, Cooper, TF and Burgess, SC (2008) Disturbance gradients on inshore and offshore coral reefs caused by a severe tropical cyclone. Limnology and Oceanography 53(2), 690–704. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2008.53.2.0690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippi, M, Hanlon, R, Rypina, II, Hodges, BA, Peacock, T and Schmale, DG (2021) Tracking a surrogate hazardous agent (Rhodamine dye) in a Coastal Ocean environment using in situ measurements and concentration estimates derived from drone images. Remote Sensing 13(21), 4415. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13214415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Z, Mooney, P, De Sabbata, S and Dowthwaite, L (2020) Quantifying gendered participation in OpenStreetMap: Responding to theories of female (under) representation in crowdsourced mapping. GeoJournal 85(6), 1603–1620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10035-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, AB, Davies, JE, Ren, K and Kelaher, B (2021) A deep learning algorithm to detect and classify sun glint from high-resolution aerial imagery over shallow marine environments. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 181, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, L, Gerhardt, K, Day, JC and Heron, SF (2022) A first nations approach to addressing climate change—Assessing interrelated key values to identify and address adaptive management for country. Parks Stewardship Forum 38(2), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.5070/P538257518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamylton, SM, Morris, RH, Carvalho, RC, Roder, N, Barlow, P, Mills, K and Wang, L (2020a) Evaluating techniques for mapping island vegetation from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) images: Pixel classification, visual interpretation and machine learning approaches. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 89, 102085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2020.102085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamylton, SM, Nurdin, N, Carvalho, RC, Jompa, JJ, Akbar, AS, Fitrah, MN, Lanuru, M and Amri, K (2020b) Mangrove and sand cay dynamics on Australian and Indonesian low wooded islands: A 45 year comparison of changes from remote sensing. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 245, 106912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, DE, Pitman, SJ and Byun, D-S (2020) Earthquakes, coasts… and climate change? Multi-hazard opportunities, challenges and approaches for coastal cities. Journal of Coastal Research 95(SI), 819–823. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI95-159.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, S, Haklay, M, Bowser, A, Makuch, Z, Vogel, J and Bonn, A (2018) Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckwolf, MJ, Peterson, A, Jänes, H, Horne, P, Künne, J, Liversage, K, Sajeva, M, Reusch, TBH and Kotta, J (2021) From ecosystems to socio-economic benefits: A systematic review of coastal ecosystem services in the Baltic Sea. Science of the Total Environment 755, 142565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, AJ, Pruckner, S, Satterthwaite, EV, Weatherdon, LV, Hadley, K and Nguyen, ETT (2021) Challenges and recommendations for equitable use of aerial tools for mangrove research. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.643784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, TP, Baird, AH, Bellwood, DR, Card, M, Connolly, SR, Folke, C, Grosberg, R, Hoegh-Guldberg, O, Jackson, JBC, Kleypas, J, Lough, JM, Marshall, P, Nyström, M, Palumbi, SR, Pandolfi, JM, Rosen, B and Roughgarden, J (2003) Climate change. Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs’, Science 301(5635), 929–933. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1085046.Google ScholarPubMed
Ireland, L (2021) Under the sea: Sea country connections on the south coast of New South Wales. Native Title Newsletter 1, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.842191686060173.Google Scholar
Irrgang, AM, Lantuit, H, Gordon, RR, Piskor, A and Manson, GK (2019) Impacts of past and future coastal changes on the Yukon coast – Threats for cultural sites, infrastructure, and travel routes. Arctic Science 5(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2017-0041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaud, M, Sicot, G, Brunier, G, Michaud, E, Le Dantec, N, Ammann, J, Grandjean, P, Launeau, P, Thouzeau, G, Fleury, J and Delacourt, C (2021) Easily implemented methods of radiometric corrections for hyperspectral–UAV—Application to Guianese equatorial mudbanks colonized by Pioneer mangroves. Remote Sensing 13(23), 4792. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13234792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, AR, Raja Segaran, R, Clarke, KD, Waycott, M, Goh, WSH and Gillanders, BM (2020) Estimating mangrove tree biomass and carbon content: A comparison of forest inventory techniques and drone imagery. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 784. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2019.00784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, KE (2020) Trinity Park, November 2020. GeoNadir. Available at https://data.geonadir.com/image-collection-details/43 (accessed 14 June 2022).Google Scholar
Joyce, KE (2021) Kewarra Beach, January 2021. GeoNadir. Available at https://data.geonadir.com/image-collection-details/81 (accessed 14 June 2022).Google Scholar
Joyce, KE, Anderson, K and Bartolo, RE (2021) Of course we Fly unmanned—We’re women! Drones 5(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones5010021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, K, Duce, S, Leahy, S, Leon, J and Maier, S (2018) Principles and practice of acquiring drone-based image data in marine environments. Marine and Freshwater Research 70, 952–963. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF17380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandrot, S, Hayes, S and Holloway, P (2022) Applications of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAV) technology to support integrated coastal zone management and the UN sustainable development goals at the coast. Estuaries and Coasts 45(5), 1230–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-021-01001-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, R, Fleming, A, Pecl, GT, von Gönner, J and Bonn, A (2020) Citizen science and marine conservation: A global review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375(1814), 20190461. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, EV, Roelfsema, CM, Lyons, MB, Kovacs, EM, Borrego-Acevedo, R, Roe, M, Phinn, SR, Larsen, K, Murray, NJ, Yuwono, D, Wolff, J and Tudman, P (2021) Reef cover, a coral reef classification for global habitat mapping from remote sensing. Scientific Data 8(1), 196. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00958-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, H, Mücher, S and van der Hagen, H (2021) Hotspot vegetation structure and terrain monitoring of Dutch coastal dunes with LiDAR and optical camera’s mounted on drones. In 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS. Brussels: IEEE, pp. 739–742. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS47720.2021.9553611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreij, A, Scriffignano, J, Rosendahl, D, Nagel, T and Ulm, S (2018) Aboriginal stone-walled intertidal fishtrap morphology, function and chronology investigated with high-resolution close-range unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry. Journal of Archaeological Science 96, 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.05.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroon, FJ, Thorburn, P, Schaffelke, B and Whitten, S (2016) Towards protecting the great barrier reef from land-based pollution. Global Change Biology 22(6), 1985–2002. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laricchia, F (2022) Consumer Drone Unit Shipments Worldwide 2020–2030. Available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/1234658/worldwide-consumer-drone-unit-shipments/ (accessed 2 September 2022).Google Scholar
Le, TDN (2020) Climate change adaptation in coastal cities of developing countries: Characterizing types of vulnerability and adaptation options. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 25(5), 739–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-09888-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, LA and Talley, TS (2002) Natural and manipulated sources of heterogeneity controlling early faunal development of a salt marsh. Ecological Applications 12(6), 1785–1802. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1785:NAMSOH]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, JYQ, Duce, S, Joyce, KE and Xiang, W (2021) SeeCucumbers: Using deep learning and drone imagery to detect sea cucumbers on coral reef flats. Drones 5(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones5020028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löw, C (2020) Gender and indigenous concepts of climate protection: A critical revision of REDD+ projects. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, MK, Adnan, FAF, Hamylton, SM, Carvalho, RC and Woodroffe, CD (2019) Assessing reef-island shoreline change using UAV-derived orthomosaics and digital surface models. Drones 3(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones3020044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marras, S and Mandli, KT (2021) Modeling and simulation of tsunami impact: A short review of recent advances and future challenges. Geosciences 11(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11010005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merlino, S, Paterni, M, Locritani, M, Andriolo, U, Gonçalves, G and Massetti, L (2021) Citizen science for marine litter detection and classification on unmanned aerial vehicle images. Water 13(23), 3349. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mora-Soto, A, Capsey, A, Friedlander, AM, Palacios, M, Brewin, PE, Golding, N, Dayton, P, Van Tussenbroek, B, Montiel, A, Goodell, W, Velasco-Charpentier, C, Hart, T, Macaya, EC, Pérez-Matus, A and Macias-Fauria, M (2021) One of the least disturbed marine coastal ecosystems on earth: Spatial and temporal persistence of Darwin’s sub-Antarctic giant kelp forests. Journal of Biogeography 48(10), 2562–2577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morzaria-Luna, L, Callaway, J, Sullivan, G and Zedler, J (2004) Relationship between topographic heterogeneity and vegetation patterns in a Californian salt marsh. Journal of Vegetation Science 15(4), 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02291.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murfitt, SL, Allan, BM, Bellgrove, A, Rattray, A, Young, MA and Ierodiaconou, D (2017) Applications of unmanned aerial vehicles in intertidal reef monitoring. Scientific Reports 7(1), 10259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10818-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nahirnick, NK, Reshitnyk, L, Campbell, M, Hessing-Lewis, M, Costa, M, Yakimishyn, J and Lee, L (2019) Mapping with confidence; delineating seagrass habitats using unoccupied aerial systems (UAS). Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 5(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, B, Vafeidis, AT, Zimmermann, J and Nicholls, RJ (2015) Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding – A global assessment. PLoS One 10(3), e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicu, IC, Rubensdotter, L, Stalsberg, K and Nau, E (2021) Coastal erosion of arctic cultural heritage in danger: A case study from Svalbard, Norway. Water 13(6), 784. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, MKB, Kim, CJS, Hoegh-Guldberg, O and Beger, M (2021) The benefits of heterogeneity in spatial prioritisation within coral reef environments. Biological Conservation 258, 109155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nugroho, D (2016) Pangandaran Nature Reserve. GeoNadir. Available at https://data.geonadir.com/image-collection-details/306 (accessed 14 June 2022).Google Scholar
O’Neill, JD and Costa, M (2013) Mapping eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada using high spatial resolution satellite and airborne imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 133, 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.02.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivelli, A, Hardesty, BD and Wilcox, C (2020) Coastal margins and backshores represent a major sink for marine debris: Insights from a continental-scale analysis. Environmental Research Letters 15(7), 074037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pablo, MC and Petzold, O (2016) Using Drone Technology to Improve Land Titling in the Philippines. The Asia Foundation. Available at https://asiafoundation.org/2016/06/29/using-drone-technology-improve-land-titling-philippines/ (accessed 12 October 2022).Google Scholar
Pell, T, Li, JYQ and Joyce, KE (2022) Demystifying the differences between structure-from-motion software packages for pre-processing drone data. Drones 6(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6010024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persaud, A (2021) Indigenous Girls to be Trained to Operate Drones. Guyana Times. Available at https://guyanatimesgy.com/indigenous-girls-to-be-trained-to-operate-drones/ (accessed 12 October 2022).Google Scholar
Plaisance, L, Caley, MJ, Brainard, RE and Knowlton, N (2011) The diversity of coral reefs: What are we missing? PLoS One 6(10), e25026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reshitnyk, L, Costa, M, Robinson, C and Dearden, P (2014) Evaluation of WorldView-2 and acoustic remote sensing for mapping benthic habitats in temperate coastal Pacific waters. Remote Sensing of Environment 153, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.07.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, ZT (2013) A comparison of proxy performance in coral biodiversity monitoring. Coral Reefs 32(1), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-012-0963-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelfsema, C, Phinn, S, Jupiter, S, Comley, J and Albert, S (2013) Mapping coral reefs at reef to reef-system scales, 10s–1000s km2, using object-based image analysis. International Journal of Remote Sensing 34(18), 6367–6388. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2013.800660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Román-Rivera, MA and Ellis, JT (2019) A synthetic review of remote sensing applications to detect nearshore bars. Marine Geology 408, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2018.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rombouts, I, Beaugrand, G, Artigas, LF, Dauvin, J-C, Gevaert, F, Goberville, E, Kopp, D, Lefebvre, S, Luczak, C, Spilmont, N, Travers-Trolet, M, Villanueva, MC and Kirby, RR (2013) Evaluating marine ecosystem health: Case studies of indicators using direct observations and modelling methods. Ecological Indicators 24, 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satariano, B (2021) The therapeutic value of the sea and its impact on health and wellbeing. Symposia Melitensia 17, 139–148.Google Scholar
Splinter, KD and Coco, G (2021) Challenges and Opportunities in Coastal Shoreline Prediction. Frontiers in Marine Science [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.788657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Splinter, KD, Harley, MD and Turner, IL (2018) Remote sensing is changing our view of the coast: Insights from 40 years of monitoring at Narrabeen-Collaroy, Australia. Remote Sensing 10(11), 1744. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10111744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, D, Apps, K, Butcher, PA, Weiler, B, Luke, H and Colefax, AP (2020) Beach-user perceptions and attitudes towards drone surveillance as a shark-bite mitigation tool. Marine Policy 120, 104127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanski, G, Bröder, L, Wagner, D, Knoblauch, C, Lantuit, H, Beer, C, Sachs, T, Fritz, M, Tesi, T, Koch, BP, Haghipour, N, Eglinton, TI, Strauss, J and Vonk, JE (2021) Permafrost carbon and CO2 pathways differ at contrasting coastal erosion sites in the Canadian Arctic. Frontiers in Earth Science 9, 1–20. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.630493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theuerkauf, EJ, Bunting, EL, Mack, EA and Rabins, LA (2022) Initial insights into the development and implementation of a citizen-science drone-based coastal change monitoring program in the Great Lakes region. Journal of Great Lakes Research 48(2), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2022.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (2017) Drones al Servicio de la Comunidad – United Nations Development Programme | UNDP, Exposure. Available at https://stories.undp.org/drones-al-servicio-de-la-comunidad (accessed 12 October 2022).Google Scholar
van Loon-Steensma, JM, Hu, Z and Slim, PA (2016) Modelled impact of vegetation heterogeneity and salt-marsh zonation on wave damping. Journal of Coastal Research 32(2), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00095.1.Google Scholar
Vargas-Ramírez, N and Paneque-Gálvez, J (2019) The global emergence of community drones (2012–2017). Drones 3(4), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones3040076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volpano, CA, Zoet, LK, Elmo Rawling, J and Theuerkauf, EJ (2022) Measuring and modelling nearshore recovery of an eroded beach in Lake Michigan, USA. Journal of Great Lakes Research 48(3), 633–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2022.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vousdoukas, MI, Ranasinghe, R, Mentaschi, L, Plomaritis, TA, Athanasiou, P, Luijendijk, A and Feyen, L (2020) Sandy coastlines under threat of erosion. Nature Climate Change 10(3), 260–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0697-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, C, Bennett, KE, Vernal, A, de Forwick, M, Fritz, M, Heikkilä, M, Łacka, M, Lantuit, H, Laska, M, Moskalik, M, O’Regan, M, Pawłowska, J, Promińska, A, Rachold, V, Vonk, JE and Werner, K (2015) Variability in transport of terrigenous material on the shelves and the deep Arctic Ocean during the Holocene. Polar Research 34, 24964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitcraft, AK, Vermote, EF, Becker-Reshef, I and Justice, CO (2015) Cloud cover throughout the agricultural growing season: Impacts on passive optical earth observations. Remote Sensing of Environment 156, 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, BA, Watson, JEM, Beyer, HL, Klein, CJ, Montgomery, J, Runting, RK, Roberson, LA, Halpern, BS, Grantham, HS, Kuempel, CD, Frazier, M, Venter, O and Wenger, A (2021) Global rarity of intact coastal regions. Conservation Biology 36(4), e13874. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13874.Google Scholar
Windle, AE, Puckett, B, Huebert, KB, Knorek, Z, Johnston, DW and Ridge, JT (2022) Estimation of intertidal oyster reef density using spectral and structural characteristics derived from unoccupied aircraft systems and structure from motion photogrammetry. Remote Sensing 14(9), 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14092163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windle, AE and Silsbe, GM (2021) Evaluation of unoccupied aircraft system (UAS) remote sensing reflectance retrievals for water quality monitoring in coastal waters. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9, 674247. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenvs.2021.674247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Keywords within peer reviewed articles related to coastal drone applications. Size of the word or phrase is relative to the number of papers using that term within their keywords, i.e. larger words indicate a higher frequency of use. Note also the movement towards using gender neutral language and favouring ‘uncrewed’ or ‘unoccupied’ rather than ‘unmanned’ (Joyce et al., 2021) will see a change in the prevalence of these search terms in the near future.

Figure 1

Figure 2. a) Spatial heterogeneity at various scales demonstrating that a small area can cover many different features and microhabitats (Joyce, 2020); b) Structural complexity of a rocky and sandy coastline seen in a digital terrain model (DTM) constructed using drone imagery (Joyce, 2019); c) Dynamic tidal flows and shifting coastal sands following a large storm event (Joyce, 2021); and d) Many lives and livelihoods are supported in this densely populated Indonesian coastal town (Nugroho, 2016).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Range of coastal features and processes currently targeted for mapping activities as key indicators of ecosystem health, surrounded by the drone and associated technology components identified as significant enablers of future directions in understanding coastal ecosystems.

Author comment: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R0/PR1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr1 [Opens in a new window]
Karen Joyce [Opens in a new window] College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University Division of Tropical Environments and Societies, Australia
Revision round: 0
Role: author

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R0/PR2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr2 [Opens in a new window]
Date of review:  19 July 2022
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: major-revision

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The review paper describes the importance of drones in mapping coastal ecosystems, identifying some key features that make them particularly well suited, such as their ability to capture high resolution data and accessibility. The paper is clearly written, well proof-read and well presented, where this paper will appeal to a large general audience. There are, however, quite a few publications that cover the use of drones to map coastal ecosystems and thus to really advance current knowledge and increase the utility of this review, there are several topics and areas that could be expanded upon and explored in this review.

Some publications that I came across that I believe are not cited yet in your review that are relevant and cover important aspects that could be mentioned (some of these are theses which I’m not sure fit your criteria but are important to include):

•Using Consumer Drones in Surveying Deltas and Coastal Systems (https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/31854) – discusses/contrasts the accuracy of the end products produced by drone imagery

•Coastal Eye: Monitoring Coastal Environments Using Lightweight Drones (http://hdl.handle.net/10871/36373)

•Cost-effective monitoring of the recreational use of coastal areas using drones and digital imagery (https://doi.org/10.25918/thesis.156) – discusses both strengths and weaknesses of drone-based techniques with comparison against traditional methods. The thesis also covers capabilities of current drone technologies available for data collection that informs coastal management

•Applications of Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Technology to Support Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the UN Sustainable Development Goals at the Coast (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-021-01001-5) – directly relates to the sustainability goals referred to in your review (e.g. line 367)

Some other suggestions on important topics/areas to be expanded upon are:

•Describe some of the applications of drones to coastal environments in greater detail – a case study would be useful e.g. any of the references cited in lines 145-146.

•In general, the review would benefit from one sentence summaries from studies referred to – how exactly have drones been used to map various coastal changes, e.g. shoreline changes, loss of mangroves?

•Are drones affordable? What equipment is needed to monitor the coast? What are the technical capabilities of the available equipment? Are there any laws, regulations or ethical concerns in using drones? Is training required to use drones? I think a valuable purpose of this review would be as a guide, and to help readers understand how to begin monitoring coastal ecosystems with drones, and more information on these topics would really help.

•What about processing drone data, is this something that citizens can do easily? I think more details on computing power required and programs available to process data need to be outlined. The first mention is from line 335, but what currently exists and how people currently analyse drone data is not clear to me.

•Identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of drones and its application across several ecosystems (reefs, mangroves etc) – what are some limitations?

Specific comments:

•Line 99-100: is there a citation to support this statement?

•Paragraph beginning line 137: what about in comparison to data collected from airborne platforms?

•Line 141: what approximately are those resolutions, so the reader can understand the size of the features that need to be mapped.

•Line 158: can drones capture individual coral polyps?

•Line 168: please spell out RGB on first mention

•Lines 233-235: Wouldn’t monitoring of coral reefs by drones also be impacted by glint/the same water mixing artefacts as satellite sensors?

•Section from line 291 – could you provide more information about the current capabilities of camera systems?

•Please spell out LIDAR on first mention

•Explain terms such as collect point spectroscopy, structure from motion photogrammetry, payload, RTK

Review: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R0/PR3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr3 [Opens in a new window]
Date of review:  20 July 2022
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: This review highlights the use of drones for coastal ecosystem mapping. The authors do an excellent job of highlighting the latest advances, challenges and future directions associated with data collection and processing using modern drone technologies for monitoring coasts. I am happy to see the authors have included information on First Nations groups and community participation, as these are two highly overlooked components of coastal ecosystems. Below are general comments and minor edit suggestions, I believe would strengthen the article.

1. Although the article reviews and touches on many coastal ecosystems, I believe it is missing examples of applications in polar or arctic coastal ecosystems. Considering arctic coastlines account for about 30% of Earth's coasts, these regions are of high importance as erosion rates are drastically altering local and regional dynamics as a result of climate-induced change. The authors failed to include this as a vital example throughout the article. Clark et al. 2021, Zhang et al. 2020, and Cunliffe et al. 2019 are some that come to mind. This leads to my next comment.

2. I wonder if the keyword search used by the authors limited the final article count. For example, 'coastline' and the acronyms 'UAV/UAS' were not included. If the authors were to redo the search again using these types of keywords, I believe articles like the ones mentioned above would be included in the results and would cover key ecosystems not currently mentioned. Including examples of arctic ecosystems would result in higher visibility across various global research communities and government agencies and have a higher impact.

Minor edits:

Line 134- The authors highlight the strengths of drone data over satellite data, however, they failed to mention the use of aerial imagery acquired from manned platforms (small cessna planes etc.) and how drone imagery compares. Several government agencies in the US (i.e. NASA, NOAA and USGS) are using manned airborne campaigns to acquire imagery across large spatial areas. I'm sure the EU also has similar airborne campaigns worth mentioning.

Line 286-289- There seems to be a lack of bullet numbers listing the key enablers. Please revise.

Recommendation: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R0/PR4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr4 [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Hamylton Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Australia
Date of review:  18 August 2022
Revision round: 0
Role: Handling Editor
Recommendation/decision: major-revision

Comments

Comments to Author: Hi Karen,

We have now had two reviewer reports on your manuscript and we can push this one through to a decision. Overall, this paper sits somewhere between a major and minor revision, i.e. a moderate revision. Seeing as this category does not exist, I suggest a major revision given the long list of comments received, to which I have added some editorial observations. Nevertheless, I do not see any of these recommendations as particularly onerous and I anticipate that they will improve the manuscript.

The first reviewer suggests a major revision and has provided detailed feedback on the manuscript, including suggestions of additional literature to engage with.

The second reviewer suggests a minor revision and also recommends some additional papers to expand the geographical scope of the paper.

In my view, there are many coastal / UAV papers out there and you can't be expected to cite them all, so perhaps an acknowledgement within the manuscript that your review does not attempt to comprehensively cover every application of UAVs in coastal zones would be useful here. Nevertheless, if you wanted to cite a greater volume and range of these papers, I think that the front end could be shortened as it is a very general introduction to coastal challenges, which I anticipate will mostly be familiar to the readers of Coastal Futures.

I think this paper would also benefit from adopting simpler language. The title, for example, could be changed from 'The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems' to simply 'The value of using drones to map coastal ecosystems'. There are other examples throughout the text where commercial jargon could be cut. All the best with the revision.

Decision: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R0/PR5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr5 [Opens in a new window]
Tom Spencer Geography, Cambridge University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 0
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: major-revision

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R1/PR6

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr6 [Opens in a new window]
Karen Joyce [Opens in a new window] College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University Division of Tropical Environments and Societies, Australia
Revision round: 1
Role: author

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R1/PR7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr7 [Opens in a new window]
Revision round: 1
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: accept

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: Great work! This is a fantastic review and very well written. Together with the new addition of Section 4 (challenges), the review gives readers a good overview of advantages and things to consider when using drone technology. I enjoyed all the descriptions of varying drone applications, especially those of Indigenous and First Nations people, which are so very important to highlight - thank you!

I just have a few things I picked up to help with your proofs:

1. Line 140 - stick to metric system here, or translate to both metric and imperial for all measurements

2. Lines 208-211 - suggest a slight readjustment of sentence to: "Scaling down from wetlands, drones can also help map the structure of fine-scale features and ecosystems such as coral reefs with increased spatial resolution."

3. Line 252 - change sharks to shark

4. Line 274 - It might be clearer to say - "The majority of First Nations drone use occured from 2014 onwards..."

5. Line 308 - change isn't to is not in the title

6. Line 420 - correct double space between and & the

7. Line 439 - correct double space between identifying & eroded

Review: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R1/PR8

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr8 [Opens in a new window]
Revision round: 1
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: accept

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The authors wrote a valuable review on the value of using drones to map coastal ecosystems. I particularly liked the addition of pros and cons in this version of the manuscript. However, may I further suggest minor additions:

1. Section 4.1- The authors failed to mention a few key considerations.

- Limited to flying in good weather. Opportunistic flights are sometimes not ideal for capturing adequate data, as weather (high winds, clouds and shadows) largely impact quality of resulting drone data products. Changing light conditions and wind hugely influence the quality of multispectral data acquired by drones for example.

- Solar zenith angle also impacts shadows- flying between 2 hours of solar noon is particularly important especially in high latitude ecosystems.

2. Even though I agree with the authors that drones can be easily adopted by local communities, it is important to mention that the quality of data might be impacted if standardized protocols are not set in place. Therefore, it is highly important to mention that reproducible workflows and data collection protocols are crucial for advancing the value of drones in the scientific community. Here is an example protocol and manuscript the authors can reference to show the potential of what is possible when collaborative and standardized methods are developed and applied across ecosystems.

- https://protocolexchange.researchsquare.com/article/nprot-7165/v1

-https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rse2.228

Recommendation: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R1/PR9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr9 [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Hamylton Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Australia
Revision round: 1
Role: Handling Editor
Recommendation/decision: accept

Comments

Comments to Author: The manuscript has been revised and improved, based on the reviewers' suggestions, and my own. Both reviews suggest acceptance, and I agree. A fore-thinking paper about cutting edge coastal technology will make an excellent early contribution to this growing journal.

Decision: The unique value proposition for using drones to map coastal ecosystems — R1/PR10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2022.7.pr10 [Opens in a new window]
Tom Spencer Geography, Cambridge University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 1
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: accept

Comments

No accompanying comment.