In this study limited field plots were measured, thus the weak relationship of field measured parameters were observed with the remote sensing parameters.
There is scope of field cruising with high sampling intensity and with the spatially well distributed samplings. The estimates can also be precise if we use high resolution satellite imageries either to represent ground scenario and for future projection. Besides the bio-physical benefits, the inclusion should be made non-carbon benefits in the analysis with spatially enabled system.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge FORESC Project implementation at Kathmandu University in collaboration of Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) for enabling this study. We also thank students and researchers at the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering who worked on this research and the contribution of AEC and ICIMOD colleagues for their valuable inputs. Last but not least we acknowledge the contribution of local farmers from different sites who offered their time and assisted in the field.
References
Baral, H., et al., (2012) Spatial assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex production landscapes: A case study from south-eastern Australia. Ecol. Complex.
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2012.11.001
Bastos Lima,G. M., Braña-Varela, J., Gupta,A., Visseren-Hamakers , I., Huynh ,B. T., Kleymann , H., Dexter , V. K., Belecky, M. (2014). Promoting Non-carbon Benefits in REDD+ Actions. Policy Brief No. 1.
Bernardo, B. N., Strassburg., Agnieszka E., Latawiec ., Creed, A., Nguyen, N., Sunnenberg, G., Miles, L., Lovett, A., Joppa, L., Ashton, R., Scharlemann, J. W., Cronenberger, F., and Iribarrem, A. (2014). Biophysical suitability, economic pressure and land-cover change: a global probabilistic approach and insights for REDD+. Sustain Sci 9: page 129–141.
Chave et al., 2005 Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests, Ecosystem Ecology, Oceologia, 145, pp 87-99
Chitale, V. S., Shrestha, H. L., Agarwal, N. K., Choudhurya, D., Gilani, H., Dhonju, H. K., and Murthy, M. S. R.: Forest climate change Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment in Himalayas, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XL-8, 1291-1294, doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-8-1291-2014, 2014.
Colwell, R. K., A. Chao, N. J. Gotelli, S.-Y. Lin, C. X. Mao, R. L. Chazdon, and J. T. Longino (2012). Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation, and comparison of assemblages. Journal of Plant Ecology 5:3-21.
Dickson, B., and Kapos, V., (2012). Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK.
Doswald, N., Osti, M., Miles, L. (2010). Methods for assessing and monitoring change in the ecosystem-derived benefits of afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration.
Multiple Benefits Series 6. Prepared on behalf of the UN-REDD Programme. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge.
FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, 2012. Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.2).
FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Luxemburg, Austria.
Hagelberg, N. (2013). Data needs & mapping the non-carbon benefits of REDD+, UN- REDD Programme. UNEP.
Hausler, T., Gomez, S., Siwe, R. (2012). Satellite Data and Monitoring Systems for REDD.
IIASA (2009). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Systematic Approach. Schlossplatz 1, A-2361, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
IPCC (2014), Climate Change 2014: IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report, Inter- Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
IPCC, 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry.
Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kindermann, G.E., McCallum, I., Fritz, S. & Obersteiner, M. 2008. A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fennica 42(3): 387–
396.
Lee, D., Granzin, S. J., Neeff, T., Göhler, D., Liss , M. B.,and Busch, A. (2011). Maximizing the Co-benefits of REDD-Plus Actions. Discussion paper for a Regional Expert Workshop supported by the German International Climate Initiative , Subic, Philippines.
Mackenzie, C., (2012). REDD+ SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS AND STANDARDS REVIEW . Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities Program (FCMC) Tetra Tech 159 Bank Street, Suite 300 Burlington, Vermont 05401 USA.
Miles, L., Kapos, V., Dunning, E. (2010). Ecosystem services from new and restored forests:
tool development. Multiple Benefits Series 5. Prepared on behalf of the UN-REDD Programme. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Miles,L.,Trumper,K.,Osti,M.,Munroe,R., and Santamaria,C. (2012) UN-REDD Programme Policy Brief. REDD+ and the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets Promoting synergies in international forest conservation efforts. Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mohren , MJ. G., Hasenauer, H., Köhl, M., and Nabuurs, J. G.(2012). Forest inventories for carbon change assessments. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4:686–695.
Moss, N., and Nussbaum, R., with input from Muchemi, J. and Halverson, E. (June 1, 2011). A REVIEW OF THREE REDD+ SAFEGUARD INITIATIVES. Jointly commissioned by the UN-REDD Programme and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s Facility Management Team.
Murphy, D., (2011). Safeguards and Multiple Benefits in a REDD+ Mechanism, International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Narloch, U., Bertzky, M., Kapos, V., Miles, L. (2012). Towards a holistic assessment of national REDD+ options:
Occasional Paper 81. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Paudel, N.S., Khatri, D.B., Khanal, D.R. and Karki, R. (2013). The context of REDD+ in Nepal: Drivers, agents and institutions.
Pham, T.T., Brockhaus, M., Wong, G., Dung, L.N., Tjajadi, J.S., Loft, L., Luttrell C. and Assembe Mvondo, S. (2013). Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries. Working Paper 108. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Ravilious, C., Bertzky, M., Miles, L. (2011). Identifying and mapping the biodiversity and ecosystem-based multiple benefits of REDD+. A manual for the ExploringMultipleBenefits tool. Multiple Benefits Series 8. Prepared on behalf of the UN-REDD Programme. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Ravilious, C., Runsten, L. and Osti, M. (2013). Using spatial information to support decisions on safeguards and multiple benefits for REDD+. Step-by-step tutorial:
How to georeference a scanned map or image with open source using QGIS 1.8.
Prepared on behalf of the UN-REDD Programme. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
REDD+ Safeguards Working Group (2014). NON-CARBON BENEFITS IN REDD+
PROVIDING INCENTIVES AND ADDRESSING METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES.
38th Session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Bonn.
Rey, D., Roberts, J., Korwin, S., Rivera, L., Ribet, U. and Ferro, P. (2013). A Guide for Consistent Imple-mentation of REDD+ Safeguards. ClientEarth, London, United Kingdom.
Robert J. Whittaker, Katherine J. Willis and Richard Field (1977) Scale and species richness:
towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity, Journal of Biogeography, 28, 453 - 470, University of Oxford, Mans®eld Road, Oxford, UK.
Sy , D. V., Herold ,M., Achard, F., Asner, P. G., Held4, A., Kellndorfer, J. and Verbesselt, J.
(2012). Synergies of multiple remote sensing data sources for REDD+ monitoring.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4:696–70.
Teobaldelli, M., Doswald, N., Dickson, B. (2010). Monitoring for REDD+: carbon stock change and multiple benefits. Multiple Benefits Series 3. Prepared onbehalf of the UN-REDD Programme. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
The Nature Conservancy and Union of Concerned Scientists (2014). Clarifying the Role of Non-Carbon Benefits in REDD+. Conservation International, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Rainforest Alliance,
UNREDD (2011). Identifying and mapping the biodiversity and ecosystem-based multiple benefits of REDD+ : A manual for the ExploringMultipleBenefits tool .
UN-REDD Programme. (2012). REDD+ Beyond Carbon: Supporting Decisions on Safeguards and Multiple Benefits. UN-REDD Programme Policy Brief; Oct. 10, 2012.
Väänänen, E., Runsten, L., Blyth, S., Mugumya, X., Mwebesa, M. and Mant, R. (2014).
Supporting planning for multiplebenefits from REDD+ in Uganda: Exploring synergies with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Available online at: http://wcmc.io/Uganda_REDD_multiple_benefits
World Bank (2008). Monitoring and Information Systems for Forest Management. in Forests sourcebook : practical guidance for sustaining forests in development cooperation / World Bank Chapter 7. p. cm. — (Agriculture and rural development)Page 243 – 247. ISBN 978-0-8213-7163-3 — ISBN 978-0-8213-7164-0 (electronic)
M. Herold (2009). An Assessment Of National Forest Monitoring Capabilities in Tropical Non-Annex I Countries: Recommendations for Capacity Building, Final Report submitted to The Prince’s Rainforests Project and The Government of Norway.
Pearson, T R H, Brown, S. L. and Birdsey, R. A.(2007) Measurement Guidelines for the Sequestration of Forest Carbon, USDA FOREST SERVICE.
Sharma, E.R., Pukkala, T., (1990). Volume equations and biomass prediction of forest trees in Nepal. Forest Survey and Statistics Division.