the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Jan 2026
Wetland Use Intensity (WUI) Dataset for European Wetlands in coastal zones
Abstract. This paper presents the Wetland Use Intensity (WUI) dataset developed under the RESTORE4Cs project, which quantifies agricultural and other anthropogenic pressures within and surrounding European wetlands in coastal zones. The dataset provides the WUI for the year 2023 at 10 m spatial resolution based on Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 satellite time series, characterizing spatial patterns of land use intensity within wetland ecosystems. WUI supports the identification of restoration priority areas and supports EU policies through indicators for climate mitigation, biodiversity, and sustainable land management. The dataset follows FAIR principles and is publicly available via Zenodo under CC BY-NC 4.0: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17660102.
- Preprint
(2384 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-793', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Mar 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-793', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Apr 2026
As a dataset paper, this work lacks validation. Merely "visually validated against independent datasets" is far from enough as a reliable validation method.
The authors ran an algorithm proposed in 2012 without explaining why or comparing its results against other algorithms.Â
It would be better if the dataset could be provided in a more user-friendly structure, such as STAC.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-793-RC2
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-793', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Mar 2026
-
The abstract effectively summarizes the dataset and its relevance. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning the methodology used to derive the Wetland Use Intensity (WUI), such as the MASD algorithm and Sentinel time series.
-
The introduction provides a strong policy context but would benefit from a clearer statement on how the WUI dataset addresses gaps left by existing land cover products.
-
The stratification of growing seasons by latitude is a practical approach. However, the justification for the specific thresholds (e.g., 55°N, 45°N) is not provided and should be supported by references or ecological reasoning.
-
The manuscript mentions that areas with persistent cloud cover are flagged as insufficient data. It would be helpful to quantify the extent of such areas or provide a mask layer for users to assess data reliability.
-
The validation section relies heavily on visual interpretation and field observations. Including quantitative metrics (e.g., accuracy assessment, confusion matrix) would strengthen the credibility of the dataset.
-
The inclusion of a surface water dynamics layer to adjust WUI values is innovative. However, the threshold of 60% inundation frequency seems arbitrary and should be justified or tested for sensitivity.
-
The selection of specific Sentinel-2 bands is described, but the rationale for choosing these bands over others (e.g., why exclude blue band?) is not fully explained. A brief justification would improve transparency.
-
The dataset is provided for 2023 only. The manuscript should clarify whether future updates are planned and how users should interpret single-year data in the context of long-term monitoring.
-
Figure 6 highlights differences between WUI layers derived from three wetland masks. A discussion of these differences and guidance on which mask to use under which circumstances would be valuable.
-
The masking of urban areas using the HRL Imperviousness layer is appropriate, but it is unclear whether all urban pixels were removed or only those within wetland boundaries. This should be clarified.
-
The manuscript suggests that users can define their own WUI categories based on local knowledge. Providing example thresholds or a recommended range based on validation sites would aid usability.
-
The note about shallow water bodies causing false high WUI values is important. Consider adding a dedicated uncertainty layer or flag for such areas.
-
The dataset is well-documented and follows FAIR principles. However, it would be helpful to mention whether the data can be accessed via cloud services (e.g., STAC API, Google Earth Engine) for easier integration.
-
Figures 2–5 are illustrative but would benefit from scale bars and clearer legends. Additionally, the color ramp used for WUI values should be described (e.g., whether it is linear or classified).
-
The manuscript cites relevant literature, but some statements (e.g., the impact of WUI on wetland health) lack direct references. Adding citations to studies linking spectral dynamics to ecological condition would strengthen the argument.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-793-RC1 -
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-793', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Apr 2026
As a dataset paper, this work lacks validation. Merely "visually validated against independent datasets" is far from enough as a reliable validation method.
The authors ran an algorithm proposed in 2012 without explaining why or comparing its results against other algorithms.Â
It would be better if the dataset could be provided in a more user-friendly structure, such as STAC.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-793-RC2
Data sets
Wetland Use Intensity (WUI) Dataset for European Wetlands in coastal zones Remote Sensing Solutions GmbH https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17660102
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 275 | 104 | 20 | 399 | 18 | 46 |
- HTML: 275
- PDF: 104
- XML: 20
- Total: 399
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 46
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Kevin Kuonath
Maria Schade
Stefan Kirmaier
Janik Hoffmann
Isabel Augscheller
Maximilian Schwarz
European wetlands are vital for nature and people, but many are under pressure from farming and other human activities. We present a new dataset showing how intensively wetlands were used in 2023, across European coastal zones. Using satellite images, it highlights where wetlands are heavily managed and where they remain less disturbed, helping decision-makers target protection and restoration where it matters most.
European wetlands are vital for nature and people, but many are under pressure from farming and...
The abstract effectively summarizes the dataset and its relevance. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning the methodology used to derive the Wetland Use Intensity (WUI), such as the MASD algorithm and Sentinel time series.
The introduction provides a strong policy context but would benefit from a clearer statement on how the WUI dataset addresses gaps left by existing land cover products.
The stratification of growing seasons by latitude is a practical approach. However, the justification for the specific thresholds (e.g., 55°N, 45°N) is not provided and should be supported by references or ecological reasoning.
The manuscript mentions that areas with persistent cloud cover are flagged as insufficient data. It would be helpful to quantify the extent of such areas or provide a mask layer for users to assess data reliability.
The validation section relies heavily on visual interpretation and field observations. Including quantitative metrics (e.g., accuracy assessment, confusion matrix) would strengthen the credibility of the dataset.
The inclusion of a surface water dynamics layer to adjust WUI values is innovative. However, the threshold of 60% inundation frequency seems arbitrary and should be justified or tested for sensitivity.
The selection of specific Sentinel-2 bands is described, but the rationale for choosing these bands over others (e.g., why exclude blue band?) is not fully explained. A brief justification would improve transparency.
The dataset is provided for 2023 only. The manuscript should clarify whether future updates are planned and how users should interpret single-year data in the context of long-term monitoring.
Figure 6 highlights differences between WUI layers derived from three wetland masks. A discussion of these differences and guidance on which mask to use under which circumstances would be valuable.
The masking of urban areas using the HRL Imperviousness layer is appropriate, but it is unclear whether all urban pixels were removed or only those within wetland boundaries. This should be clarified.
The manuscript suggests that users can define their own WUI categories based on local knowledge. Providing example thresholds or a recommended range based on validation sites would aid usability.
The note about shallow water bodies causing false high WUI values is important. Consider adding a dedicated uncertainty layer or flag for such areas.
The dataset is well-documented and follows FAIR principles. However, it would be helpful to mention whether the data can be accessed via cloud services (e.g., STAC API, Google Earth Engine) for easier integration.
Figures 2–5 are illustrative but would benefit from scale bars and clearer legends. Additionally, the color ramp used for WUI values should be described (e.g., whether it is linear or classified).
The manuscript cites relevant literature, but some statements (e.g., the impact of WUI on wetland health) lack direct references. Adding citations to studies linking spectral dynamics to ecological condition would strengthen the argument.