Morning — Spatial Analysis & Use Cases¶
Day 3 · 09:00–12:30 · Module 4
Session 6 — EO for Project Monitoring, Completion & Evaluation (09:00–10:30)¶
Slide deck: Day 3 Deck 1 — IsDB Project Cycle Exercises
Web-based vs desktop GIS¶
This course uses web-based tools exclusively — no desktop GIS installation is required. This reflects the practical context of a diverse group of operations staff who need accessible, reproducible workflows.
The limitation is real: computationally intensive raster analysis (large national datasets, complex statistics) runs more efficiently in desktop GIS. QGIS — free and open-source — is the recommended next step for participants who wish to go further. See the Video Tutorials section.
EO for PIASR — Project Supervision¶
- Remote monitoring between field missions — detect vegetation change, surface water change, and construction progress from satellite imagery between visits
- Physical output assessment — satellite observations can provide an independent check on claimed construction progress prior to disbursement; findings should be cross-referenced with field reports
- Anomaly detection — flag when conditions deviate from an expected trajectory
- Time-series dashboards — ETa, surface water extent, and LULC change accessible at any time
EO for PCR — Project Completion¶
- Baseline vs end-line comparison — use the same boundary and the same EO-derived indicators established in the PAD baseline; compute change in ETa, irrigated area, surface water extent, or LULC
- Spatial output documentation — map the geographic extent of works delivered
These satellite-derived comparisons provide one evidential input to the Project Completion Report (PCR). They complement engineering as-built records, supervision reports, and stakeholder assessments.
EO for PPER — Post-completion Evaluation¶
- Long-term monitoring — track vegetation, land cover, and water trends three to five years after completion using consistent satellite-derived indicators
- Sustainability assessment — confirm infrastructure and landscape changes have been maintained
- Counterfactual analysis — where a pre-project baseline was established at PCN or PAD stage, satellite observations can support a structured before/after comparison in independent evaluation
A project in satellite imagery — illustrative example¶
An illustrative analysis examined an IsDB school project built during 2013–2016 using GeoLibre and satellite imagery:
- Building construction was discernible in satellite images taken during the construction period
- Ten years after completion, the structure remained visible in current imagery
- A 1 km buffer around the school was drawn; land use, flood risk, and population within the buffer were explored
This example illustrates how satellite imagery can support long-term outcome monitoring when a spatial baseline was recorded at project identification. The satellite observations indicate physical presence and broad land-use context — they do not replace operational monitoring, beneficiary surveys, or educational outcome data.
Think about this
For a project of this kind — which part of the project cycle does this type of satellite analysis support? And what specific map or figure would be placed in each project document?
Illustrative answers: PCN/PAD for siting decisions and environmental context; PIASR for construction progress assessment; PCR and PPER for physical sustainability verification.
Key spatial analysis operations¶
| Operation | What it does | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Overlay | Combine two or more map layers to examine intersections | Project sites overlaid on a flood-risk layer |
| Buffer | Generate a zone of defined distance around a feature | 1 km buffer around a road or school |
| Zonal statistics | Summarise values within a defined zone | Mean ETa within a project boundary |
| Site suitability | Combine multiple factors to identify preferred locations | Slope, land use, and soil data combined for an irrigation scheme |
Session 7 — Use Cases & Minimum Project Data Submission Form (11:00–12:30)¶
Use-Case Selection Form¶
Participants identified specific EO applications relevant to their own projects and sectors. The form captures:
- Which project phase the EO application relates to
- Which indicator is needed (ETa, RZSM, LULC, population, flood risk, and others)
- Which project document will use the output
- Which tool can generate it (eToolkit, WaPOR, GeoLibre, EarthMap)
This input feeds into the development of the GEIDA platform — informing which automated outputs and dashboards to prioritise.
Minimum Project Data Submission Form¶
The GEIDA programme requires a minimum spatial dataset for every project onboarded into the platform. The Minimum Project Data Submission Form collects:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Project name & code | As recorded in the IsDB project database |
| Administrative area | Country + region + district |
| Sector / team | Determines which EO indicators are most relevant |
| Project stage | Identification or Preparation is preferred — the earlier a project is registered spatially, the more useful the baseline |
| Boundary / corridor / point | KML, GeoJSON, or coordinate pair |
| Area of influence | Broader geographic zone affected by the project |
| Baseline year | The year the baseline should reference |
| Relevant indicators | ETa, RZSM, LULC, water, climate, population, and others as applicable |
Start at PCN — maintain the spatial thread
From PCN to PPER there can be a gap of ten or more years. Registering the project boundary and baseline in a spatial database at identification stage preserves the ability to make a before/after comparison at evaluation. The Minimum Project Data Submission Form is the starting point for that process.
Continue to Afternoon — GeoLibre & Exercise 3