Tropek et al. critique the Hansen et al. global forest loss paper in terms of its utility and accuracy. Both criticisms suffer from a miscomprehension of the definition of forest employed as well as the requirements of product validation. Utility of the product is enhanced through its integration with forest type, carbon stock, protected area status, and other ancillary data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansen et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: