Is remote monitoring as good as in-person monitoring?

Grant program land trusts reported that remote sensing gave them a complete picture of the property that is as good or better at identifying issues as on-the-ground visits. In the graph below, land trusts answered a question on the completeness of remote monitoring versus in-person monitoring. 88% of respondents said that remote monitoring provided more or much more complete coverage than in-person monitoring.

Remote monitoring can also serve as a useful complement to on-the-ground monitoring. Land trusts have found reviewing the image before the in-person visit allows the monitor to focus on high-risk areas of the property.

Organizations also describe how often they will visit properties using remote monitoring indicating that they will be able to increase their visits to properties. This increase in frequency should lead to a decrease in violations, benefiting the organization and landowners.

Mike Henegan, director of stewardship at Georgia-Alabama Land Trust, observes:

Both in-person and remote monitoring offer in-depth ways to look at a property and I think the best method is to use both to get a comprehensive picture of the property. Remote allows us to see the forest while in-person allows us to see the trees. Every easement is unique, and the specific terms of an individual easement may determine what method is necessary.