Last updated: 2023-08-04
Checks: 7 0
Knit directory: mapme.protectedareas/
This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.7.0). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.
Great! Since the R Markdown file has been committed to the Git repository, you know the exact version of the code that produced these results.
Great job! The global environment was empty. Objects defined in the global environment can affect the analysis in your R Markdown file in unknown ways. For reproduciblity it’s best to always run the code in an empty environment.
The command set.seed(20210305) was run prior to running
the code in the R Markdown file. Setting a seed ensures that any results
that rely on randomness, e.g. subsampling or permutations, are
reproducible.
Great job! Recording the operating system, R version, and package versions is critical for reproducibility.
Nice! There were no cached chunks for this analysis, so you can be confident that you successfully produced the results during this run.
Great job! Using relative paths to the files within your workflowr project makes it easier to run your code on other machines.
Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.
The results in this page were generated with repository version cec2414. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.
Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for
the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results
(you can use wflow_publish or
wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown
file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it
depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results
were generated:
Ignored files:
Ignored: .RData
Ignored: .Rhistory
Ignored: .Rproj.user/
Ignored: analysis/threat_assessment_selva_maya_cache/
Unstaged changes:
Modified: data/ecuador_mangroves.gpkg
Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.
These are the previous versions of the repository in which changes were
made to the R Markdown (analysis/ecuador_mangroves.Rmd) and
HTML (docs/ecuador_mangroves.html) files. If you’ve
configured a remote Git repository (see ?wflow_git_remote),
click on the hyperlinks in the table below to view the files as they
were in that past version.
| File | Version | Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rmd | cec2414 | Petutschnig, Andreas | 2023-08-04 | update Ecuador mangrove report |
| html | 2d24cc2 | Petutschnig, Andreas | 2023-07-24 | Build site. |
| Rmd | 5cb93db | Petutschnig, Andreas | 2023-07-24 | workflowr::wflow_publish(c("analysis/index.Rmd", "analysis/ecuador_mangroves.Rmd")) |
Mangrove is tropical coastal vegetation and considered the most significant part of the marine ecosystem and provides a link between the sea and the land. Hence, considered one of the world’s dominant coastal ecosystem. There have been subsequent changes in the extent of mangroves since decades. The changes might be in the form of gain or loss. Global Mangrove Watch is an open source platform offering remote sensing data and tools for monitoring mangroves around the globe. The main purpose of this routine is to carry out analysis on the protected area level to see whether the extent of mangroves within definite protected areas (PAs) is increasing or decreasing. The individual regions we address are PAs relevant to the KfW portfolio (as provided by the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA/IUCN) 1) and coastal administrative regions as references.
This document gives an overview about coastal mangrove habitats in Ecuador. In order to get an overview that coastal seafood farming has on mangrove distribution, we compare mangrove coverage over time in and around protected areas.
We compare the following two sets of areas: - WDPA Regions: These are the PA outlines as provided by WDPA - Administrative Regions: Base unit are the Cantons of Ecuador that contain any mangroves. We applied a 5km buffer to them in order to capture “stray” mangrove coverage not covered otherwise. The buffer areas are non-overlapping in order to avoid double counting any mangrove coverage. We also excluded the WDPA Regions from the Administrative Regions.
For these sets of areas, we calculated mangrove coverage for years with available data (1996, 2007 - 2010, 2015 - 2020). As a first result, we can compare the difference in mangrove coverage between 1996 and 2020.
On the map, WDPA regions are outlined with a bold black line to identify them. The color scale is the same for both layers to make them comparable.
The area around Guayaquil shows a very prominent difference between the protected and non-protected areas.
We show the difference between PAs and non-PAs by plotting their absolute and relative changes in mangrove coverage.
Plotting the mangrove area over time for individual regions gives a first idea of the coverage dynamics. However, because the effects are not that constant, the plots are quite busy. You can select an area within the plot to zoom in.
In addition, we can look at the mean changes and see a clearer picture of the drastic changes, especially outside PAs prior to 2010.
To address the problem that our study regions vary in size, we also consider the relative changes in mangrove coverage. To show this, we plot different summary statistics of the coverage change over time and separate by protection status.
To examine the coverage dynamics on the individual PA level, you can hover over the respective cell in this heat map:
Note: Because of the irregular data sampling intervals, some blocks in the heatmap appear wider than others. The values in the first column represent the changes between years 1996 and 2007.
Also, some of the region names appear multiple times, e.g. Manglares Churute. This is because there exist multiple PAs with the same name. However, they can be separated by their respective WDPA ID.
You can check what lies behind the individual region pairs by checking them on the protected planet website:
The motivation for this document is to examine the effects of shrimp farming in or close to mangrove habitats. It would be beneficial to extend the study by incorporating the shrimp farm locations. However, we were not able to obtain appropriate data. For visual inspection of the farm locations, we can look at the satellite background images in the map view, however.
sessionInfo()R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16 ucrt)
Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit)
Running under: Windows 10 x64 (build 19044)
Matrix products: default
locale:
[1] LC_COLLATE=English_United States.utf8
[2] LC_CTYPE=English_United States.utf8
[3] LC_MONETARY=English_United States.utf8
[4] LC_NUMERIC=C
[5] LC_TIME=English_United States.utf8
time zone: Europe/Berlin
tzcode source: internal
attached base packages:
[1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
other attached packages:
[1] lubridate_1.9.2 forcats_1.0.0
[3] stringr_1.5.0 dplyr_1.1.2
[5] purrr_1.0.1 readr_2.1.4
[7] tidyr_1.3.0 tibble_3.2.1
[9] tidyverse_2.0.0 sf_1.0-14
[11] plotly_4.10.2 ggplot2_3.4.2
[13] mapview_2.11.0 mapme.biodiversity_0.3.0.9000
[15] magrittr_2.0.3 geodata_0.5-8
[17] terra_1.7-39 cartomisc_0.0.0.9000
[19] RColorBrewer_1.1-3
loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
[1] tidyselect_1.2.0 viridisLite_0.4.2 farver_2.1.1
[4] fastmap_1.1.1 lazyeval_0.2.2 leaflet_2.1.2
[7] promises_1.2.0.1 digest_0.6.33 timechange_0.2.0
[10] lifecycle_1.0.3 ellipsis_0.3.2 compiler_4.3.1
[13] rlang_1.1.1 sass_0.4.6 tools_4.3.1
[16] leafpop_0.1.0 utf8_1.2.3 yaml_2.3.7
[19] data.table_1.14.8 knitr_1.43 labeling_0.4.2
[22] brew_1.0-8 htmlwidgets_1.6.2 sp_2.0-0
[25] classInt_0.4-9 KernSmooth_2.23-21 workflowr_1.7.0
[28] withr_2.5.0 grid_4.3.1 stats4_4.3.1
[31] fansi_1.0.4 git2r_0.32.0 e1071_1.7-13
[34] leafem_0.2.0 colorspace_2.1-0 scales_1.2.1
[37] cli_3.6.1 rmarkdown_2.23 generics_0.1.3
[40] rstudioapi_0.15.0 httr_1.4.6 tzdb_0.4.0
[43] DBI_1.1.3 cachem_1.0.8 proxy_0.4-27
[46] base64enc_0.1-3 vctrs_0.6.3 webshot_0.5.5
[49] jsonlite_1.8.7 hms_1.1.3 systemfonts_1.0.4
[52] crosstalk_1.2.0 jquerylib_0.1.4 units_0.8-2
[55] glue_1.6.2 leaflet.providers_1.9.0 codetools_0.2-19
[58] stringi_1.7.12 gtable_0.3.3 later_1.3.1
[61] raster_3.6-23 munsell_0.5.0 pillar_1.9.0
[64] htmltools_0.5.5 satellite_1.0.4 R6_2.5.1
[67] rprojroot_2.0.3 evaluate_0.21 lattice_0.21-8
[70] png_0.1-8 httpuv_1.6.11 bslib_0.5.0
[73] class_7.3-22 uuid_1.1-0 Rcpp_1.0.11
[76] svglite_2.1.1 whisker_0.4.1 xfun_0.39
[79] fs_1.6.2 pkgconfig_2.0.3 UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2022), Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) [Online], February 2022, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net.↩︎
Bunting P., Rosenqvist A., Lucas R., Rebelo L-M., Hilarides L., Thomas N., Hardy A., Itoh T., Shimada M. and Finlayson C.M. (2018). The Global Mangrove Watch – a New 2010 Global Baseline of Mangrove Extent. Remote Sensing 10(10): 1669. doi:10.3390/rs10101669.↩︎