1. Introduction
Copernicus is the European Union’s Earth observation program, designed to systematically collect data about our planet and its environment in a free and open-access manner. Started in 1998 by the European Commission (EC) and the European Space Agency (ESA), it is made up of dedicated satellites called Sentinels, in situ sensors, and information services to monitor the Earth’s surface, atmosphere, and oceans to support environmental protection, climate monitoring, and the assessment and management of natural disasters [1]. By providing high-quality, timely data, Copernicus aims to enhance decision-making processes, foster sustainable development, and improve the overall quality of life not only for the European Union but the world [2,3].
To maximize the impact of data from Copernicus, various capacity-building and user uptake strategies have been implemented. The Copernicus Relays and the Copernicus Academy Network, for example, bridge e-skills and data use, promoting the usage of open space data and cooperation in research among universities and organizations [4]. Similarly, training workshops, both on-site and online, offer hands-on experience, while academic programs integrate Copernicus’s content [5,6]. Technical assistance provides ongoing support, and resources such as manuals and online platforms centralize the training materials. Pilot projects and demonstrations showcase practical applications of open Earth observations for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in different fields, encouraging the adoption and refinement of methodologies [7,8]. These initiatives aim to equip stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, and industry professionals, with the necessary skills to effectively utilize data and services from Copernicus.
While building capacity can increase user uptake by equipping users with the necessary skills, technical barriers such as limited access to technology, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of technical expertise can hinder their successful implementation [9]. Addressing these barriers requires targeted interventions that develop human resources, strengthen institutional frameworks within local systems of government, and enhance the policy environment [10]. Therefore, building capacity extends beyond training activities to include comprehensive efforts aimed at developing competencies in geoinformatics [11]. Nevertheless, the implementation of training activities provides valuable insights and best practices in remote sensing education and the usage of spatial data, even in challenging scenarios where limited data access and availability are significant constraints [12].
The tropical Andes, a region characterized by its unique biodiversity and significant ecological importance, presents a critical area for applying remote sensing and geospatial technologies. This region faces numerous environmental challenges such as deforestation, land degradation, and the impacts of climate change [13,14,15], as well as issues derived from territorial security and concerns about illegal activities [16,17]. These challenges necessitate the use of advanced monitoring, open data, and analysis tools provided by programs like Copernicus. However, demonstrating its capabilities and uses is not straightforward, and its inherent complexity requires that the target training groups possess some level of experience in remote sensing, geographic information systems (GIS), environmental modeling, risk management, and climate change science. While different approaches exist for strengthening capabilities in geoinformatics, with differentiated benefits and limitations, bringing experts to provide advanced training in specialized workshops is a common approach and probably the most efficient [18]. Some examples of such approaches where Copernicus was involved include both in-person and virtual workshops held in tropical Andean countries, covering various topics such as radar-based remote sensing [19], monitoring glaciers [20], indigenous land management [21], and monitoring forests [22]. Nevertheless, the literature shows that it is less common for workshops to go beyond the use of Sentinel data and its specific applications to utilizing the full range of possibilities offered by Copernicus’s services, which include applications to the atmosphere, marine environment, land, climate change, security, and emergency management domains. It is more challenging to hold a workshop on these, as a multidisciplinary approach and tailored training programs are needed to effectively address the diverse aspects of Copernicus’s services.
To contribute to this area that has seldom been studied in the literature, this research documents the experiences of design and implementation of training workshops on Copernicus’s services held in Ecuador and panel discussions in Bolivia, both in the tropical Andes. Ecuador and Bolivia were chosen due to their similar environmental challenges, institutional needs, and interest in geospatial tools provided by Copernicus, which aligned with the research goals and the openness of government institutions. Although we worked with similar target groups (i.e., mostly government personnel), challenges such as cultural differences, organizational climate, language modisms, technology use, and economic reliance on mining in Bolivia and oil in Ecuador provided a testbed for capacity-building methods in Latin America. The Ecuadorian training workshops, lasting 10 days, focused on strengthening stakeholders’ capabilities in specialized topics on Copernicus’s services, while the Bolivian panel discussions, lasting 4 days, aimed to promote the use of Copernicus’s services and identify any need for advanced training. Both events emphasized applications of Sentinel data through Copernicus’s services, along with a variety of different tools. To organize the documentation of these experiences, this article begins with a background on the Copernicus program and foundational information about the events. It then details the procedure for identifying the needs, organizing the curriculum, the contents of the presentations, the training materials, and key indicators of the events’ success. The results highlight and discuss the successes and challenges during the workshop and panel discussions, offering recommendations for multidisciplinary Copernicus-focused training programs.
2. The Background of Copernicus Services and the Workshops
2.1. The Copernicus Services
Copernicus’s services (CS) are a dedicated component of the Copernicus program, focused on monitoring and forecasting various aspects of Earth’s systems. They are managed by the EC in cooperation with the ESA and other key institutions such as: the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), the European Environment Agency (EEA), and the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen). These services provide specialized products derived from the processing of data from the Sentinel satellite constellation, other contributing missions, and in situ observations. This actionable information offers insights into the atmosphere (CAMS) [23], marine (CMEMS) [24] and land (CLMS) [25] environments, as well as climate change (C3S) [26], emergency management (CEMS) [27], and security (CSS) [28]. With the exception of the CSS, all services are freely accessible, supporting environmental monitoring, climate change mitigation, and public policy, ultimately enhancing the quality of life globally.
2.2. The Ecuadorian Training Workshops on CS
The training workshops titled “Integration of Copernicus Space Technologies: Advanced Strategies for Climate Change, Risk and Disaster Management, Environmental Management, Territorial and Food Security” took place in Quito on 8–19 January 2024. It was supported by the Military Geographic Institute of Ecuador and the European Delegation in Ecuador, who acted as key collaborators for the workshop. It aimed to empower Ecuadorian analysts from selected institutions to effectively use CS, following a collaboration discussed in a roundtable talk between the Ecuadorian Government and the European Union on the topics covered in the workshop’s title. Survey data from institutions were collected to identify the needs and capabilities and to define a 10-day training workshop, running 8 h per day, covering an overview of CS, including monitoring the atmosphere and land, climate change, emergency management, and security applications with practical exercises. Despite switching to a virtual mode due to a security emergency [29] that resulted in the cancellation of a field trip and some participants’ withdrawal, the program produced high satisfaction among the 17 registered participants from six institutions. Additionally, strategic priorities were summarized to reflect the participants’ interests in further developing Copernicus-based solutions by decision-makers and other influencers.
2.3. The Bolivian Panel Discussions on CS
The panel discussions titled “The Geospatial Challenges of Bolivia” were conducted in La Paz on 14–19 February 2024. It was supported by the Vice Presidency of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Bolivian Embassy, Geobolivia, and the European Delegation in Bolivia, who acted as key collaborators for the workshop. The objective was to present the Copernicus program and promote the use of its services among public and private entities. Additionally, the panel discussions aimed to gather information and testimonials on capabilities regarding the management of geoinformation and the demand for advanced training in CS. Supported by a series of presentations, in-depth interviews, and a survey of the needs and capabilities of various stakeholders, topics related to environmental management, productive development, emergency and disaster management, strategic sectors, and territorial security were presented and discussed in a 4-day program. This program consisted of two sessions per day with varying participant attendance, each lasting around four hours, and held during different meetings. These meetings enabled participants to identify priorities and proposals for using CS in informed decision-making. This was achieved despite challenges such as a limited time, the need to discuss sensitive topics, and difficulties in measuring the success of the panel discussions. Nevertheless, the available data on existing capabilities and needs aided in identifying strategic priorities for future interventions.
3. Data and Methods
The methodology for conducting the training workshops in Ecuador and the panel discussions in Bolivia is summarized in the flowchart shown in Figure 1. Both events followed three phases, featuring similar activities at different stages but with some differences due to their scope and focus.
The first phase involved planning to organize content and develop supporting materials. The second phase focused on execution, including data collection on the events’ success. The third and final phase consisted of analyzing the results to formally evaluate the events’ success and derive lessons learned and CS strategic priorities.
3.1. Identification of Stakeholders’ Needs and Capabilities
In the Ecuadorian training workshops, the Annual Security Roundtable between the EU and Ecuador in September 2022 gathered stakeholders to discuss the potential of the Copernicus Programme to address natural disasters, illegal crop monitoring, environmental crimes, and maritime protection. Although stakeholders already use Copernicus data, it was concluded that specialized training was required to fully utilize its potential. With this background, the training workshops were designed by first compiling a list of stakeholders through information from existing literature [30], recommendations from collaborators, and profiles related to geoinformatics careers obtained from the contact directories of target institutions’ websites. This resulted in 1883 contacts from ten institutions, who were invited via email to complete a survey on needs and capabilities, detailed in Appendix A. The survey design incorporated the objectives of the roundtable, along with insights from in-depth interviews with selected stakeholders (described later in this section), ensuring that the questions addressed local priorities and challenges in geoinformatics and satellite data applications related to Copernicus. Using this instrument, 76 valid survey responses were collected from eight institutions, with a male proportion of 76% and an average age of 41.5 years.
The approach in the Bolivian discussion panels differed, as four pillars—Environmental, Production, Strategic Sectors, and Security—addressed the interests of Bolivia’s key collaborators and were discussed prior to the execution of the panels. Challenges such as illegal crop detection, lithium extraction monitoring, deforestation, fires, and flood management were identified as opportunities for Copernicus. However, stakeholders working on these topics were only identified during the meetings, and the talks were further adjusted to align with their interests. Participants were also asked to complete a survey at the end of the panels. The survey design was similar to the one applied in the Ecuador training workshops; however, it was adapted to clarify which needs and capabilities were relevant to addressing the aforementioned challenges. In this case, 18 valid survey responses were obtained from six institutions, with a male proportion of 66% and an average age of 38.8 years.
In both events, the survey was provided as a web link to collect information through multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions about the needs and capabilities in terms of the following topics:
Five demographic questions covering gender, age, education, specialty, and institution;
Four questions focused on experience and knowledge, including tenure, geoinformatics, satellite imagery, and handling software;
Fourteen questions related to the interest in applications of CS including meteorology and hydrology (Hydrometeorology), risk and disaster management (Risk), agriculture and food security (Agriculture), environmental monitoring (Environment), marine management (Marine; only in the Ecuadorian workshop), territorial security (Security), and processing Sentinel data (Sentinel).
Survey data were cleaned by removing zero-variance responses and filtering the “very interested” answers from the Likert scale. These responses were then tabulated as percentages to compare Bolivia and Ecuador and to facilitate the communication of results with stakeholders. Stratification by job specialties, rather than by institutions, was chosen to maintain anonymity in reporting the results and to highlight commonalities and differences, ensuring that the training interventions were tailored to address the unique challenges and needs of each specialty. Figure 2 shows the demographics, experience, and knowledge of the survey respondents from both countries.
Key differences among the respondents indicated that Bolivia had a higher proportion of graduates (83%); primarily focused on geography (38%), the environment (22%), and security (22%); and showing greater proficiency in geoinformatics, especially in technical knowledge (44%) and interpretation of images (38%). In contrast, Ecuador had a higher proportion of undergraduates (56%) and a significant number of employees with over 10 years of tenure (22%); was more engaged in agriculture (37%) and geography (21%); and reported lower proficiency in geoinformatics skills such as technical knowledge (24%) and interpretation of images (27%). Although both countries showed robust usage of GIS, Bolivian (77%) respondents declared that they use it more than those in Ecuador (65%). Additionally, Bolivian respondents significantly preferred cloud-based platforms (66%) compared with their Ecuadorian colleagues (34%). This variation in skills and focus areas indicated differing expectations and utilization of CS between the two countries, which were crucial for the design of the curriculum for the training workshops in Ecuador and the strategy for future interventions in Bolivia, which are detailed later in this article.
In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted to clarify the needs and capabilities in both Ecuador and Bolivia. This approach involved actively listening to stakeholders during their interventions, asking relevant questions (shown in Appendix B), and taking notes to gather detailed information on the following topics:
The integration of CS with current operations and objectives;
The existing infrastructure and potential adaptations of CS;
The expected challenges and technical requirements for implementation of CS;
An evaluation of CS impact on operations and decision-making.
In the Ecuadorian case, four stakeholders recommended by key collaborators were interviewed via teleconferencing. In contrast, in Bolivia, the interviews were conducted in person during the event, with the content varying based on the stakeholders’ interests. These included domain-specific experiences and discussions on their challenges, needs, and expectations of CS. Notes and open-ended questions from the survey on needs and capabilities were processed using ChatGPT-4 [31] to extract keywords from notes and refine the stakeholders’ interests in applications of CS. This method facilitated a comprehensive analysis of the stakeholders’ needs, challenges, and expectations beyond the applications of CS considered in closed questions. This enabled the customization of the training program, allowing the training team and capacity-building efforts to meet the diverse needs of the stakeholders involved.
3.2. Development of the Training Workshops Curriculum and the Program for the Panel Discussions
For the development of the training workshop curriculum in Ecuador, considerations of the specific needs and capabilities identified in the surveys, along with the priorities of the Annual Security Roundtable between the EU and Ecuador, were regarded as critical to its success. Additional considerations of the cultural, economic, and social contexts were also incorporated into the workshop design, including the following:
Adjusting schedules to accommodate speeches by high-level representatives, as well as the available working hours of participants;
Coordinating with local institutions to support organization, reduce costs, and highlight their roles;
Ensuring all workshop materials were available in Spanish and providing flexible participation options to accommodate participants’ work responsibilities;
Adapting workshop content to reflect local contexts, interests, and prior experience;
Promoting diversity in participation by inviting participants from different institutions, backgrounds, and genders;
Prioritizing the use of free-access data and open-source tools to address economic constraints.
As part of the workshop design, a curriculum was developed considering the 10 days available for the workshop. Nevertheless, the contents of this curriculum were modified from the original plan, which had been designed as an in-person workshop with a field visit. As mentioned in Section 2.2, a security emergency inhibited in-person sessions after the second day of the workshop. Therefore, from the third day onwards, the workshop was conducted virtually, revisiting the topics to accomplish the workshop’s objectives. Table 1 summarizes the curriculum implemented, covering six sessions on CS. Each session included a 2 h presentation by the workshop facilitator, covering the service’s overview, objectives, functions, data sources, related Sentinel mission, products, applications, social impacts, and challenges.
For CEMS only, the content was divided into two sections due to its extent. The first section covered rapid mapping, risk and recovery, and mapping exposure, while the second section focused on early warning systems, such as the Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS) [32] (Figure 3) and the Global Drought Observatory (GDO) [33]. In the case of the session on Sentinel data processing, the presentation focused on describing the Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem (CDSE) [34] but also explored alternatives such as WekEO [35]. After the presentation and a break, the workshop resumed with a demonstration of downloading products of around 2 h in duration, where the participants were free to explore each CS in two formats: (1) using the graphical user interface (GUI) and (2) using the application programming interface (API). The latter was possible in all sessions except CSS, a reserved service from Copernicus. Instead, an open-access portfolio of CSS partner SatSEN [36] was presented. Following this, the workshop began with practical exercises of around 3 hours’ duration. A brief presentation clarified the problem concepts and exercise instructions, followed by guided problem-solving with step-by-step demonstrations and questions.
To monitor participants’ learning and satisfaction, brainstorming sessions, evaluations, and satisfaction surveys were conducted in the first half and at the end of the workshop. Brainstorming sessions involved group discussions about CS applications, allowing participants to share insights and reinforce concepts before evaluations. Evaluations were individual tests to assess comprehension, while satisfaction surveys measured participants’ satisfaction with the workshop (See Section 3.5).
In the Bolivian case, the program design for the panel discussions was tailored to the stakeholders, accommodating seven sessions within the four available days and following the broad structure based on the four pillars (Environmental, Production, Strategic Sectors, and Security). The talks within each pillar required flexibility to select content and address the participants’ specific needs and interests as they emerged during the discussions. Similar to the Ecuadorian workshops, considerations of cultural, economic, and social contexts, as mentioned earlier, were also applied to the panel discussions. Table 2 outlines the structured program for the panel discussions, covering topics ranging from an overview of the Copernicus Program to participant-guided discussions on specialized themes related to its services. These include the Environmental pillar, focusing on the applications of CLMS, C3S, CEMS, and CAMS for monitoring land, climate, and emergency management.
The Production pillar focused on applications of C3S, CLMS, and CEMS for agricultural analytics and assessing the impacts of climate change. The Strategic Sectors pillar concentrated on CLMS and Sentinel data processing for managing mining activities, including monitoring illegal mining practices. The Security pillar focused on Sentinel data processing for monitoring illegal activities.
Each pillar was designed to explore the diverse applications and impacts of CS within these fundamental sectors. These sessions began with a presentation, where the first section provided an overview of the Copernicus program, including its architecture, the Sentinel constellation, and the Copernicus services. A second section delved into the pillars, presenting information, statistics, maps, and literature that described these pillars in the Bolivian context and how they connect to Copernicus’s services for decision-making. After this presentation, the stakeholders’ roundtable began. This activity consisted of short presentations by participants, where they exposed their challenges in exercising their institutional competencies, as well as their expectations and questions about how to use Copernicus’s services in their activities. This dialogue lasted around 4 h and facilitated diverse participation in an interactive format, promoting the exchange of information, problem-solving, networking, and building relationships. At the end of the session, the survey of needs and experience was adapted for the Bolivian stakeholders and shared for completion.
Since in both events the participants were professionals with different backgrounds, experiences, and institutions, common strategies were applied to ensure effective communication and collaboration. A key strategy was to tailor materials for both advanced and beginner audiences, allocating time to explore tools that did not require advanced knowledge of geoinformatics but instead emphasized ready-to-use information (e.g., WEkEO, CS GUI portals) and the operation of cloud-based applications with immediate results (e.g., GloFAS, GDO, GEE). For advanced sessions requiring programming and GIS experience, routines with documented examples and controlled environments were shared to enable participants to focus on results, modify the exercises as needed, or simply follow their execution. Similarly, to address the diverse backgrounds of participants, flexibility was allowed for them to join sessions of interest. Each session was designed to be independent, allowing new participants to follow the content without prior knowledge. However, the CEMS session in Ecuador, which lasted two days, required participants to attend both days to fully understand the possibilities offered by Copernicus for risk management. Finally, discussions guided by facilitators ensured that participants had the opportunity to exchange their experiences and knowledge, helping to bridge gaps between institutions and areas of specialization. This was especially important in Bolivia, where the time allocated for panels was limited, and the audience was highly diverse.
3.3. Organizing Team Roles and Coordination of Logistics
For the organization and implementation of the Ecuadorian and Bolivian events, a training team comprising three specific roles was established for each. These roles can be summarized as follows:
Facilitators delivered talks on the essential aspects of Copernicus’s services, as well as other advanced technical topics. This role also involved selecting the content, conducting exercises and evaluations, and collecting feedback from stakeholders.
Event assistants facilitated the activities, established a communication channel with participants, and organized the logistics of the event. They also provided administrative support and assisted in the technical aspects of presentations and execution of the exercises.
Stakeholder coordinators bridged the gaps among the facilitators, the workshop assistants, and the participants. They also secured special talks from high-ranking representatives, arranged the venues, and formally communicated with and invited the stakeholders.
For the training workshops in Ecuador, the organizing team consisted of one facilitator, three event assistants, and three stakeholder coordinators. For the in-person days, the venue was a conference center at the Geographic Institute of Ecuador. During the training workshops, coffee breaks and lunch were provided, and a record of the sessions was maintained. The participants were asked to bring their own laptops, but a few desktop computers were also available upon request. After the second day and the switch to online mode, the participants convened via Microsoft Teams, with the sessions recorded to later edit and share the presentation materials. For communications, a WhatsApp channel was opened with the participants.
In the case of the panel discussions in Bolivia, the organizing team comprised two facilitators, two event assistants, and two stakeholder coordinators. The headquarters of the Vice Presidency of the Plurinational State of Bolivia served as the venue, which had different meeting rooms as well as a conference room. Since the participants were different in each session, only coffee breaks were provided. The presentations were not recorded, except for the session on the overview of Copernicus, which was transmitted online. The participants were not asked to bring their own presentation materials; however, some of them provided these, which were useful in understanding their experiences and needs. No communication channels were opened with the participants, except through the stakeholder coordinators, due to the sensitive nature of some discussions.
3.4. Development of Training Materials
Before the Ecuadorian workshop began, instructions were given to the participants to install the required software in their computers to follow the demonstration of downloading products and perform the practical exercises, which included the following:
QGIS 3.28-Firenze (long-term release) and QFIELD 4.2.0 plugin;
Sentinel Application Platform (SNAP) 9.0.0;
Anaconda 2.4.2 and Spyder 5.4.1.
The participants were also requested to register on the following cloud-based platforms:
Google Earth Engine (GEE);
posit.Cloud for Rstudio.
Additionally, they were asked to install the following mobile apps for special exercises:
QFIELD 3.1.1-Borneo app;
Google Jamboard app.
In the case of the demonstration of downloading products, the participants were asked to follow the facilitator’s steps during the use of Copernicus’s services’ GUIs. This involved explaining the process of registering to the participants and the catalog of products before downloading. For the APIs, the participants were first explained how to use Anaconda, and they were asked to create a dedicated environment for Copernicus APIs. This environment was based on Python version 3.10.13, together with the installation of packages cdsapi 0.6.1 and terracatalogueclient 0.1.18. A Python routine in the Copernicus APIs’ user manual [37] was adapted, which requires configuring access to C3S, CAMS, and CLMS by creating files with API credentials to make requests and list and download datasets in a user-defined directory. A complete list of the GUIs and APIs analyzed in the workshop can be seen in Appendix C.
With regard to the practical exercises, different platforms were considered. In the case of GEE, scripts for processing Sentinel 1, 2, and 5P time series data were implemented. Figure 4a shows an example of Sentinel-5P processing in GEE.
These scripts can be summarized as follows:
Sentinel-5P processing: This script processes Sentinel-5P time series data to extract atmospheric products (e.g., SO2, NO2) for a specific area and time period. It composites the data based on a user-defined percentile, generates time series images, and exports them with metadata for analysis.
Sentinel 1-2 land cover classification: This script processes Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data to classify land cover in a specific study area. Users can define parameters such as the time period, cloud cover thresholds, and classification options. The script calculates indices (e.g., NDVI, NDWI) from Sentinel-2 and uses radar backscatter (VH and VV) from Sentinel-1. These are reduced into 30th, 50th, and 70th percentile composites, combined, and used to train a random forest classifier based on an ancillary land cover map for prediction. The output includes RGB composites for validation purposes and classification results.
Sentinel 1-VIIRS Metrics Extraction: This script processes Sentinel-1 and VIIRS data to derive key metrics for identifying suspicious infrastructures within a specified area and time period. Users can set parameters such as time period, polarization, orbit type, binarization threshold, and focal max filter size. The script applies thresholds to binarize Sentinel-1 backscatter and generates focal max images to highlight corner reflectors or flat areas. It also processes VIIRS data to highlight nighttime light spots and integrates these with the Sentinel-1 outputs. The results include the binarized images.
Depending on the exercise, their results were later complemented with scripts in R to perform exploratory analyses of Sentinel data (Figure 4b), or for advanced analysis such as predicting atmospheric pollutants with Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) [38], or deriving deforestation maps using land cover data, as well as their accuracy metrics (Table 3). These R scripts were developed in posit.Cloud, which allowed the participants to create, share, and monitor R projects in the exercises without the need to install software locally. Some of the practical exercises included the use of QGIS for cartographic analysis, such as when participants were asked to derive validation samples from Sentinel-2 RGB composites or explore and derive statistics from the rapid mapping of CEMS data from the Ecuador 2016 earthquake [39]. Similarly, despite the field trip being canceled to risk zones related to the Cotopaxi volcano, a dedicated exercise using the QFIELD mobile app was conducted to demonstrate its use with the GHS built-up surface map [40] as a field data tool for emergency management purposes. For methodologies specialized in decision-making, such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) [41], exercises were integrated with some theoretical background and a survey to qualify the importance of parameters such as soil moisture, biomass carbon density, NDVI, and land surface temperature for biophysical fire risk assessment. These parameters were used to derive weights, construct a model, and compare it to burned areas obtained from CLMS [42]. Similarly, for methodologies on distribution models, where species data were required, the open-data platform Global Biodiversity Facility (GBIF) [43] was also explained, along with some concepts of taxonomy, distribution models, and procedures for downloading and cleaning species data. As it was necessary to rescale climate models obtained from C3S (e.g., Agrometeorological indicators, ERA5-Land monthly averages [44,45]), a routine based on the random forest algorithm described in Santos et al. [46] was adapted for this procedure.
As data from CSS were not available, principles of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and Sentinel-1 mission data acquisition were explained to give context and interpret results of the Sentinel 1-VIIRS GEE routine for identifying suspicious infrastructures. These scripts, along with those for API access and data analysis, are available upon request to the authors. Furthermore, to explain local processing of Sentinel-1, an exercise using SNAP software was explained to the participants, with special emphasis on the automation of processing Sentinel-1 GRD data using a processing chain adapted from Filipponi [47]. To complete this session, an interferogram exercise was adapted from the Alaska Satellite Facility to process Sentinel-1 SLC data and validate the reported subsidence in southern Ecuador [48] (Figure 5).
Despite the Bolivian panel discussions not being planned to include training sessions, stakeholders appreciated demonstrations of the abovementioned Copernicus services, accessing data, and applications. To fulfill these requests, considering the time constraints, demonstrations of accessing data were prioritized, especially for the CLMS service, as most stakeholders were interested in their products. Other specialized sessions, such as the session on the Security pillar, included showcasing the Sentinel 1-2 Metrics Extraction script to identify suspicious infrastructure.
3.5. Mechanisms for Monitoring and Evaluating the Learning Experience
The monitoring and evaluation of the Ecuadorian training workshop experience involved various methods. Participation was tracked through attendance lists and active tracking during sessions, with the goal of achieving 80% daily attendance and completion of at least four of seven posit.Cloud practical exercises, evidenced by activity hours on the platform. Weekly evaluations tested knowledge with nine questions per test, requiring a minimum score of 70% to meet the training objective. Two brainstorming sessions via Jamboard reinforced concepts, enabling participants to share insights on Copernicus Services across topics like air quality, climate monitoring, disaster management, and resource management. Weekly satisfaction surveys with Likert-scale questions assessed quality, relevance, learning methods, guidance, and overall satisfaction. Data processing, detailed in Appendix D, highlighted areas for improvement by filtering high-value responses while addressing positively skewed results.
In the case of the Bolivian panel discussions, due to their format and the short duration of the sessions, satisfaction surveys and evaluations were not used. Instead, attendance lists were used to measure the level of interest in specific topics. Additionally, notes on the participants’ opinions and the interest observed in open-ended questions in assessment of the survey of needs to assess the impact of the talks. This approach helped us to understand the relevance and impact of the panel discussions on the stakeholders involved.
One year after conducting events in Ecuador and Bolivia, post-event interviews with participants were conducted to gain deeper insights into participants’ learning experiences, focusing on five key areas: application of knowledge, practical use of Copernicus tools, local impact and collaboration, long-term evaluation, and suggestions for improvement. Participants were asked questions about how they applied the acquired knowledge in their work, specific problems and case studies addressed with Copernicus tools, the benefits to their institutions, and recommendations for future training programs. The interviews, lasting 30–40 min, provided qualitative data that complemented the quantitative evaluation methods, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of the workshop’s impact. Details of the interview questions can be found in Appendix E.
4. Results
4.1. Alignment of the Survey of Needs with the Workshop’s Curriculum and the Panel Discussions
Based on an analysis of the survey of needs and capabilities, the results for Ecuador are displayed in Figure 6. This illustrates the varying interests across different specialty groups of stakeholders, which, in most cases, corresponded to the categories of survey questions. Within agriculture, the respondents showed slightly more interest in the management of irrigation (51.6%) and monitoring crops (48.4%). However, despite some interest in crops’ resilience (46.7%), this was addressed in the practical exercises of the C3S session and was not the primary focus. Climatology and hydrology specialists predominantly focused on weather alerts (100%) and early disaster alerts (87.5%), primarily emphasized during demonstrations of GloFas in the sessions on CEMS early warnings.
Specialists in environmental sciences showed interest in the quality of air and water (71.4%) and almost equal interest in all topics related to risks (over 66%). Air quality topics were specifically addressed in the practical exercise on CAMS, while risk-related topics were explored during the CEMS sessions. Geography professionals primarily focused on mapping disasters (77.8%) and early disaster alerts (66.7%), showing significant interest in processing Sentinel data, particularly access to API data (77.8%) and automation (72.2%). Similarly, specialists in technology and informatics also emphasized these areas but added reporting statistics (87.5%). CEMS sessions, as well as demonstrations of accessing API data coupled with data automation and statistics exercises using R and Python, aligned well with these interests. Lastly, risk management specialists not only showed interest in general risk-related applications but also emphasized specialized topics such as fire alerts and monitoring droughts and floods, each with 75% showing interest. All these topics were addressed in the CEMS sessions.
Regarding Bolivia, the results of the survey on needs and capabilities are shown in Figure 7.
Similarly, the stakeholders’ specialty groups aligned with the categories of survey questions, although risk managers and technology and informatics specialists were absent, and a new category on security was added.
With fewer respondents in some specialties, the interests appeared more dispersed. Agriculture specialists uniformly showed high interest (100%) in all agricultural applications discussed during the session on the Production pillar but with less emphasis on processing Sentinel data, which also interested this group. Climatology and hydrology specialists focused on weather-related risks and were uniformly interested (100%) in weather alerts, monitoring droughts and floods, and risk-related applications, which were covered in both sessions on the Environmental and Production pillars, potentially missing attendees who were not present at both sessions. Specialists in environmental sciences all showed interest (100%) in forest cartography and the impact of the climate on biodiversity, with substantial interest (75%) in other topics on risk and Sentinel processing data, suggesting that the Environmental pillar alone may not have fully attracted their interest. Geography professionals strongly focused on forest cartography (71%) and were also interested in the quality of air and water and accessing API (both 57.1%), which were discussed in the sessions on the Environmental and Strategic pillars, though access to API was mentioned without a detailed discussion. Finally, the security specialty notably focused on surveillance detection, identifying illicit crops, and monitoring illegal crops, each achieving interest above 50%, which were discussed in the session on the Security pillar. Additionally, there was interest in forest cartography and land use change (both 50%), which were topics discussed only in the session on the Environmental pillar.
4.2. Participant Expectations from Interviews and Survey Open Questions
After processing the open questions and interviews, we noted additional participant expectations. Analysis of frequent keywords in responses revealed that “monitoring” was commonly mentioned in both countries, appearing more than 10 times. Ecuadorian responses included keywords like analysis, data, management, mapping, and satellite, whereas Bolivian responses highlighted terms like illegal, agricultural, change, artificial, and forest. Figure 8 displays word clouds of individual keywords.
In Ecuador, open question responses highlighted a multifaceted approach to agriculture, emphasizing sustainable and agroecological practices integrated with artificial intelligence to enhance food security through precision agriculture, efficient irrigation, and bio-inputs. Specialized practices such as beekeeping, hydroponics, and pisciculture were noted, alongside strategies for pest control and disease management to optimize productivity and environmental health. In terms of climate, the focus was on risk analysis, storm prediction, and monitoring climate change effects, including ENSO phenomena and paleoclimatology. Weather prediction models and early frost warnings were discussed for better preparation against climatic events. Environmental management concentrated on combating deforestation, desertification, and forest fires with mapping, reforestation, and biodiversity conservation efforts. Techniques included glacier monitoring, pollution control, air quality monitoring, and vegetation analysis for conservation. Water management was a significant concern, with emphasis on monitoring freshwater resources, lake and river levels, and watershed studies.
Keywords for managing landfills and waste were also mentioned. Marine responses underscored the importance of coastal and mangrove reforestation, erosion control, and maintaining seawater quality, alongside sustainable fishing practices and maritime safety, including monitoring shipwrecks. Risk management strategies were focused on developing models for disaster prevention and response, enhancing early warning systems, and community training for natural threat monitoring such as floods, droughts, fires, mass movements, eruptions, and earthquakes. Interest was also expressed in using Copernicus to strengthen and diversify data, reduce data production time, and enhance validation processes for risk management. Security discussions covered illegal crossings, port activities, and unauthorized mining and crop cultivation, with a special focus on cannabis legislation. Sentinel data processing responses included the use of machine learning and deep learning for satellite image processing, change detection, and area mapping. Techniques like SAR data processing and multispectral analysis were highlighted, alongside the development of prediction models and automation processes using Python, open-source software, and Copernicus cloud platforms for data management and analysis.
Survey responses from Bolivia highlighted a significant interest in agricultural topics, including agricultural expansion, land use changes, and enhancing farming efficiency through techniques such as parcel delimitation, yield modeling, and risk forecasting. Responses also focused on soil productivity, sustainable practices, and the cultivation of both traditional and agro-industrial crops. Climate-related responses centered on modeling the impacts of climate change on agriculture and analyzing dynamics like temperature, humidity, precipitation, and greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental concerns emphasized research on water resources, monitoring of eutrophication and sedimentation, glacier studies, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem protection, endangered species preservation, management of non-timber forest products, and national park conservation. A strong focus on combating deforestation, forest degradation, mining activities, and invasive species was noted. Priorities also included the regeneration of areas affected by forest fires. Risk management themes covered fire monitoring and prevention, flood response, early warnings, and emergency planning, particularly in response to seasonal challenges such as the rainy season, as well as addressing human-induced risks like land encroachments. The development and use of platforms for forecasting and monitoring risks and disasters were noted. Security concerns related to illegal mining and the cultivation of illicit crops (e.g., coca and marijuana) were discussed, with an emphasis on the need for effective detection of drug trafficking routes and laboratories. Sentinel-related interests included data validation, historical event mapping for improved decision-making, and adjustments to satellite imagery, such as those from Sentinel-2.
4.3. Completion of Practical Exercises and Evaluation Scores
As practical exercises and evaluations were conducted only for the Ecuadorian training workshops, here we show results for each week’s CS evaluations. The overall score was calculated from these evaluations, with a combined total of 75.5% correct answers over two weeks. Detailed scores for individual CS, derived from separate question sets, are presented in Figure 9.
In the first week, participants achieved an overall score of 82.8% correct answers across the CAMS, CLMS, and C3S services, with CAMS averaging the highest at 97.8%, followed by C3S at 79.3% and CLMS at 71.6%. Issues with specific questions highlighted misunderstandings about CLMS’s non-commercial operation and the socio-economic pathways described by CMIP6 in C3S. The second week saw an overall score of 72.6% across the CEMS, CSS, and Sentinel sessions. CSS averaged the highest at 85%, with Sentinel data (69.5%) and CEMS (69%) close behind. The results slightly miss the training objectives, particularly for CEMS. Challenges included understanding CEMS objectives, the GloFAS methodology, and differentiating commercial from open Sentinel data services.
The completion of the workshop exercises was documented using data from posit.Cloud and QFIELD usage statistics, providing quantitative insights into the 16 participants registered on the platforms (Figure 10).
For the CAMS exercises involving atmospheric pollution forecasting with Sentinel 5P, 56% of participants successfully replicated the task, completing 136 h of computing. In the CLMS module, which focused on land cover and deforestation mapping using Sentinel-1 and 2, 62% of participants replicated the exercise, taking between 236 to 288 h of computing. In the C3S exercises, which involved rescaling climate models and assessing crop resilience with future climate data, we saw a higher engagement, with 75% of participants replicating the task, taking between 288 and 455 h of computing. Meanwhile, the CEMS tasks, which included reviewing emergency information from the 2016 Ecuador earthquake and constructing collaborative maps with QFIELD, had a lower replication rate of 50%, with participants taking between 29 and 59 h of computing. Additionally, the AHP exercise for hazard assessment was replicated by 100% of the participants, taking between 29 and 155 h of computing. This reduced computing time may have been due to most of the exercises being conducted outside of posit.Cloud. The CSS module on modeling illicit crops and identifying associated infrastructure had the lowest engagement, with only 25% replication and 206 h of computing. In the Sentinel session, as it was conducted mainly using SNAP, replication of exercises could not be evaluated.
4.4. Participant Satisfaction in Ecuador, Participation, and Post-Event Interviews
The satisfaction surveys collected during the training workshops in Ecuador showed 11 responses from the first week and 15 responses from the second. On average, the first week received a score of 67% of the highest possible responses, while the second week received 80%. Figure 11 summarizes these evaluations for each session of the training workshops.
Ranking the sessions from highest to lowest rated, the results were CEMS (81%), CSS (81%), Sentinel (77%), CLMS (70%), C3S (67%), and CAMS (64%). Similarly, when ranking the qualification areas, the results were Quality and Relevance (83%), Overall Satisfaction (83%), Resources Provided (75%), and Teaching Methods (53%).
As mentioned in Section 3.5, participant attendance was considered an additional measure of interest in both the Ecuador and Bolivia events. Figure 12 summarizes their attendance, showing that in Ecuador, it was less variable, ranging between 13 and 18 participants. The second week had lower attendance, particularly during the Sentinel session on January 18th, while January 15th saw the highest attendance during the CEMS session.
In Bolivia, attendance was more variable, ranging between 7 and 24 in-person participants. February 14th had the lowest attendance, as it was the start of the panel discussion, while February 16th saw the highest attendance when the Copernicus overview talk was given to various stakeholders and broadcast online. The total attendance for this session was greater than the 24 in-person participants, with around an additional 2000 viewers online according to Facebook metrics.
With regard to the post-event interviews, participants were voluntarily invited, and six interviews were confirmed, five from different institutions in Ecuador and one from a key collaborator in Bolivia. In the case of Ecuador, interviews revealed advancements in workflows, such as using Sentinel data for disaster response, crop monitoring, and land-use analysis, although some participants faced challenges due to limited resources, changes in workplace functions, and technical expertise. Notable applications after the workshop and throughout 2024 included rapid assessments of landslide-affected areas in Baños Municipality, the impact of fires in Quito, and automated crop mapping (e.g., rice and corn) using Sentinel-2. Other applications involved flood mapping during the Niño event with Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2, the exploration of Sentinel-5 products for climate change analysis, and the use of CAMS data to fill gaps in meteorological time series. Achievements highlighted the budgetary benefits and acknowledged the learning gained in using open-access Copernicus data and open-source software and the provision of data sources and applications from each CS, as well as the demonstration of new processing approaches through cloud platforms and automation with programming languages. Participants emphasized the need for more hands-on training, initial programming tutorials, clear minimum requirements for workshop participation, and more mechanisms for knowledge transfer. Suggestions included incorporating case studies focused on multidisciplinary collaboration, improved knowledge transfer mechanisms, extending training durations, prioritizing in-person workshops, and offering more specialized workshops instead of a broad review of CS.
Regarding the interview with a key collaborator in Bolivia, the limited application of Copernicus potential was highlighted for various reasons, including a lack of specialized personnel and the rotation of experienced staff. Nevertheless, increased interest and advanced use of Sentinel data for various applications, including land cover mapping, crop and water quality monitoring, fire impact analysis, and disaster management, were noted. Some remarkable applications included extending historical land cover mapping from 2016 to 2024, as well as monitoring potatoes and cassava crops using Sentinel-2. Some achievements included increased motivation to use Earth observation data for security applications, shifting satellite data storage to Copernicus platforms, and improving workflows by integrating open-access data and cloud processing tools. The key collaborator emphasized the importance of sustainability through continuous training programs, effective knowledge transfer mechanisms, and the integration of Copernicus data products and services with national platforms to simplify access and avoid the overload of navigating multiple platforms. Suggestions focused on offering more practical content and virtual courses and maintaining participant engagement through ongoing capacity-building initiatives.
5. Discussion
The experiences from Copernicus events have illustrated diverse perspectives on how to enhance stakeholders’ capabilities in specialized topics related to CS, as well as in promoting their use. In this study, we demonstrated that despite the challenges encountered—particularly in Ecuador due to a security emergency and in Bolivia due to limited time, feedback collection, and the discussion of sensitive topics—it was still possible to achieve the proposed goals in challenging scenarios and contribute to building capacity. These outcomes highlight the resilience and adaptability of our strategies, which in other contexts can enhance workshop outputs and lead to innovative value creation [49,50]
5.1. Successes and Challenges from the Copernicus Events in Ecuador and Bolivia
In Ecuador, the need to adapt to virtual workshops due to a security emergency enabled the continuation of training sessions without cancellation. Although postponement was considered, it was not feasible due to existing institutional agreements. Consequently, it was imperative that the planning of the training workshops be swiftly reshaped into a virtual format (Figure 13a), despite the potential drawbacks of adopting a fast-track approach [51]. This adaptability was facilitated by the needs and capabilities survey, which provided several topics of interest for the workshop curriculum redesign. This input appears to explain the higher scores in the “quality and relevance” category of the satisfaction survey, which exceeded 70%. Unfortunately, the transition to a virtual workshop was perceived as less satisfactory, especially during the first week following the announcement, with satisfaction scores ranging from 73% to 80% compared with over 80% previously. This sentiment was similarly reflected in the evaluation of teaching methods and attendance, both of which appeared to decline in effectiveness as the training days progressed, dropping from 60% to 45%. Despite these figures being computed from qualifications that express very high satisfaction, they help to denote factors such as participant fatigue, lurking, and turnover, which likely contributed to these outcomes. These factors may also explain the declining scores for evaluations and exercises, despite overall thresholds being met (see Section 3.5). The disadvantages of video conferencing in education have been largely discussed in the context of the pandemic [52,53]. To mitigate such challenges, it is recommended to provide more diverse learning resources than previously used—such as mini-projects, personalized content, or peer review activities—which could be beneficial. However, it is crucial to properly advise students of the benefits and achievable outcomes of these activities to enhance their effectiveness [54]. Also, breaking full-day virtual workshops into a series of shorter, individual sessions has been noted as an effective approach [55]. Integrating these resources with guest speaker sessions, as well as incorporating novel approaches such as virtual fieldwork [56], might enhance engagement and help combat discomfort.
In the panel discussions, the careful selection of content, informed by stakeholders coordinators before the core discussions, proved essential for the event’s relevance and effectiveness. This approach effectively conveyed that their needs could be enhanced by integrating data and tools from Copernicus. Therefore, the flexibility of the program and its content redesign was again crucial not only for tailoring these talks to specific CS but also for meeting stakeholders’ interests and maximizing the time for them to express their needs. While it may seem self-evident, managing precise content and time effectively in practice proves challenging, particularly when sensitive topics need to be discussed [58], stakeholder experiences vary [59], and the number of participants complicates the overall duration of the panel [60] (Figure 13b). These time constraints led in our case to ignore the importance of demonstrations of CS, which generated some dissatisfaction among experienced stakeholders, as well as the verification of survey collections from in-person participants. To mitigate these issues, carefully considering the allocation of time for short demonstrations focused on data access may improve the impact of talks, as observed in other GIS-related training [61]. Other strategies may include providing recorded video tutorials, follow-up webinars, or discussion clinics for experienced participants, which can be accessed before or after the panels. Similarly, dividing sessions into parallel tracks based on participants’ expertise levels could ensure that advanced users receive in-depth content while beginners focus on foundational topics. These measures could help free up live session time for deeper discussions on specific topics. Furthermore, to enhance engagement, new approaches such as live polling via mobile phones [62] could be implemented. This method allows for immediate feedback collection, unlike traditional surveys, which often have longer completion times and lower response rates. Nevertheless, taking active notes or, with given consent, recording talks is also recommended. These records can then be easily processed using today’s large language model tools [63]. In terms of content selection, prior discussions about the key topics of the training events should remain flexible and indicative, allowing themes to be dynamically adjusted based on participants’ feedback during the sessions. However, it is essential for the training team to consider that when participants come primarily from public institutions, content selection should focus on improving the quality of government data and addressing its gaps rather than replacing it with other sources. This is also important during discussions, where figures are mentioned, and government sources should be prioritized over those from academia or other stakeholders. A recommendation in this regard is to have stakeholder coordinators establish guidelines for data sources and their procurement beforehand, ensuring that all information shared is accurate and credible for participants.
5.2. Outcome Variations from Bolivia Panel Discussions and Ecuador Training Workshops
The events in Bolivia and Ecuador revealed both similarities and differences in their focus areas, offering insights into how each country received the information. Regarding their similarities in terms of purpose and objectives, it is important to highlight that both events clarified that the Copernicus Program extends beyond Sentinel data delivery. They also revealed that neither country was previously aware of the full range of CS, except for the CEMS rapid mapping products for emergencies. Disentangling these perceptions by showcasing high-level products was crucial for demonstrating CS’s broader capabilities. However, summarizing and organizing these products from each service posed a challenge, as noted in other works [64]. Similarly, both formats encouraged audience engagement despite the gender gap (with over 65% male proportion in both countries) and varied experiences of participants from various institutions, fostering multidisciplinary discussions that could be linked to CS. In this regard, the pluralistic approach of GIS science [65] is recommended for addressing CS complexity and fully harnessing its applications, particularity in disaster response, land cover mapping, and crop monitoring, which saw notable expansion in both countries. For interested readers, the following literature presents successful training cases where these topics were studied in detail and applied in real-world scenarios: [66,67]. It is also recommended to promote “Women in Copernicus” [68] and extend to Latin America as an effective approach to motivating women to participate and reducing the gender gap in capacity building.
Furthermore, despite the different event formats, both effectively delivered content through presentations, speeches, data access, and application demonstrations. Ecuador, in particular, demonstrated advanced applications after the training, including the use of Copernicus data for landslide assessments, fire impacts, flood mapping, meteorological data filling, and automated crop mapping, while Bolivia emphasized its use for historical land cover monitoring, security applications, and crop monitoring. Feedback was also received through surveys and interviews, with the former being more relevant in Ecuador and the latter in Bolivia. The success of these activities depended on the proactive involvement of the training team, whose efforts ensured that the content was tailored to the specific needs and contexts of each audience. Therefore, organizers of training workshops or panel discussions should consider the roles of the training team described in this research to facilitate tasks. Additionally, we apply further recommendations, such as those described by Mittelmeier et al. [69], including adapting learning designs to suit diverse cultural and institutional contexts and emphasizing a student-centered focus to enhance their organization. Integrating open-access Copernicus data with cloud-based processing tools, as demonstrated in both countries, could further streamline workflows and optimize data utilization. They should also link to existing resources in Latin American Copernicus hubs (e.g., Panama and Chile), engage with other joint e-learning platform initiatives, and consider the importance of educational resources, including video material and the use of open-source software [70,71,72,73].
In terms of differences, despite both events having the same objective and purpose, the Ecuadorian training workshops imparted specific knowledge to participants, which can be evaluated and further examined. Beyond the theory, the training workshops included various exercises that mostly aligned with the interests declared in the needs and assessment survey but received mixed satisfaction among participants. Interestingly, exercises related to C3S that aligned best with participants’ interests, as well as those related to CEMS that combined software tools rather than focusing solely on programming, were better received, achieving over 90% overall satisfaction compared with others. Criticism was noted regarding the time allocated for exercises, which was unfortunately not well balanced with the rest of the CS exercises. Participants faced challenges during training, such as varying technical expertise, which affected their engagement with certain exercises. This was due to the combination of multiple programming environments and the diverse experience and career backgrounds of participants, particularly those with Geography and Agriculture profiles, who preferred software tools over programming. Furthermore, after the training, limited resources and workplace role changes also negatively impacted their ability to apply the knowledge gained. As mentioned earlier, varying levels of stakeholder experience must be managed carefully, as well as monitoring the long-term effects of the training, which, in our case, was overlooked. Additional recommendations, beyond those mentioned for time allocation, include using well-formatted computation notebooks to facilitate programming exercises [74], implementing training success and impact metrics [75], motivating the replication of training experiences at local levels [76], and experimenting with innovative approaches based on problem-based learning environments [77].
Regarding the Bolivian panel discussions, its relatively short duration and discussion-focused approach, aimed at evaluating the need for advanced Copernicus training, underscore its unique strategy. Here, stakeholders were eager to see the improvements possible through integrating CS, especially for addressing recent emergencies in Bolivia (e.g., forest fires, illegal mining in protected areas, and monitoring of illegal crops) and obtain actionable information for improved decision-making. Synthesizing fit-for-purpose CS products that could meet these needs present a challenge [78], and organizers should be aware to integrate locally relevant content [69] in these types of event formats. However, the limited use of Copernicus, largely due to a lack of specialized personnel and staff turnover, remains a key barrier, reinforcing the need for sustainable capacity-building efforts. To address them given the limited time, it is recommended that stakeholder coordinators identify priority needs so facilitators and event assistants can prepare a list of training resources and information products beforehand. Continuous training, effective knowledge transfer mechanisms, and integration with national platforms could further support sustainability and ensure long-term adoption of Copernicus Services. Furthermore, attendance was particularly different in Ecuadorian and Bolivian events. While in the first case, attendance was more stable and limited to the same participants, in the second, it was more variable and reached unexpected participants due to its online broadcast. Acknowledging these differences is important as they offer insights into how various formats and accessibility options can impact participant engagement and reach. Outcomes such as the acquisition of new skills, strengthened networking, and enhanced knowledge distribution are more commonly associated with in-person workshops [79]. In contrast, virtual formats can offer increased accessibility, diversity, and inclusivity [80]. Regardless of the format, future training efforts should incorporate more practical content, provide accessible support materials such as pre-existing courses, and seek sustained participant involvement, ensuring both accessibility and deeper skill development. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for drafting expected training outcomes and guiding the planning of future events to better accommodate and target diverse audiences.
5.3. Strategic Priorities for Future CS Training Initiatives in Both Countries
Both Ecuador and Bolivia demonstrate a strong interest in leveraging CS to enhance their national capabilities in various strategic areas, reflecting their commitment to integrating advanced geospatial technologies into their environmental and developmental frameworks. In particular, both countries converge on the importance of advancing agricultural practices, as noted in other studies [81,82]. While their specific goals differ—Ecuador focuses on precision agriculture and sustainable practices, whereas Bolivia targets agricultural expansion and efficiency improvements—both nations seek to integrate CS to enhance their farming techniques. Environmental concerns are also a key focus for both Ecuador and Bolivia, with each country stressing the importance of combating deforestation [14] and fires and conserving biodiversity [83]. Techniques like mapping and vegetation analysis in Ecuador align with Bolivia’s efforts in biodiversity conservation and the management of non-timber forest products. In terms of climate and risk management, both prioritize climate-related responses, which aligns with the gaps in monitoring and evaluation systems for climate change adaptation in these countries [84]. Ecuador is focused on storm prediction and monitoring the effects of climate change, whereas Bolivia emphasizes modeling the impacts of climate change and managing risks associated with weather events, such as floods and landslides. Regarding Sentinel data utilization, expectations from both countries underscore its use for various applications, including agricultural monitoring, environmental management, and risk assessment, with both expressing a need for enhanced data processing capabilities to improve decision-making.
In terms of divergences, Ecuador and Bolivia exhibit distinct potential uses of CS, each reflecting their unique priorities and challenges. Ecuador highlights specialized agricultural practices not mentioned in Bolivia’s responses, such as beekeeping, hydroponics, and pisciculture, highlighting an interest in a diverse approach to agricultural diversification applications. However, these practices are somewhat outside the primary focus of CS, which can be problematic in terms of direct applicability. Conversely, Bolivia places a pronounced focus on security issues, particularly illegal mining and crops [85], dedicating substantial efforts to detecting and managing these illicit activities—more so than Ecuador. The latter does not specify precise applications but indicates an interest in using geospatial data to enhance the country’s ability to effectively respond to and manage security-related issues, particularly in detecting vessels associated with drug trafficking and illegal fishing [86]. Additionally, the emphasis extends to marine and freshwater management, including significant activities such as mangrove reforestation and seawater quality maintenance. In terms of technology application, Ecuador demonstrates a deeper interest in utilizing advanced technologies like machine learning, deep learning, and SAR data processing for environmental and agricultural improvements, compared with Bolivia, where technology usage is acknowledged but less detailed. Lastly, Ecuador’s strong commitment to community-level engagement is evident in its emphasis on training for monitoring natural threats and disaster response, highlighting a proactive approach to risk management that is less apparent in Bolivia’s priorities.
6. Conclusions
The outcomes of the Copernicus events in Ecuador and Bolivia underscore the program’s crucial role in addressing regional challenges through geospatial technologies. These events have effectively demonstrated how tailored training and discussions contribute to capacity-building and enhance stakeholder engagement in the practical application of CS. Despite challenges such as the need for rapid adaptation to virtual formats in Ecuador and issues with content selection and feedback collection in Bolivia, the importance of flexible event design was clearly highlighted. The distinct approaches and focuses applied in the events—ranging from detailed practical exercises in Ecuador to broader, discussion-oriented formats in Bolivia—emphasize the importance of aligning with local contexts and needs. This alignment ensures that the benefits of the CS are relevant to stakeholders’ specific challenges, including food security, climate change, environmental issues, and risk management. Furthermore, the insights gained from these experiences should guide the enhancement of similar initiatives. This includes integrating training success and impact metrics, as well as more interactive and participant-friendly methodologies, such as live polling and segmented virtual sessions, to improve engagement and learning outcomes. Additionally, focusing on adapting content to local contexts and ensuring that technological resources are more accessible will empower stakeholders to more effectively use CS. By continuing to adapt and refine these strategies, the Copernicus program, through its services, can more effectively support regional resilience and sustainable development goals.
Conceptualization, F.S., L.D.L. and M.M.B.; methodology, F.S., L.D.L. and M.M.B.; software, F.S.; validation, F.S., L.D.L. and M.M.B.; formal analysis, F.S. and L.D.L.; investigation, F.S., L.D.L. and M.M.B.; resources, F.S., L.D.L. and M.M.B.; data curation, F.S. and L.D.L.; writing—original draft preparation, F.S. and L.D.L.; writing—review and editing, F.S., L.D.L. and M.M.B.; visualization, F.S. and M.M.B.; supervision, L.D.L. and M.M.B.; project administration, L.D.L. and M.M.B.; funding acquisition, F.S., L.D.L. and M.M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Universidad Indoamérica (INV-0022-012-010; 7 January 2025).
Verbal informed consent was obtained from the participants. Verbal consent was obtained rather than written consent because of the virtual format of the workshops, variability in attendance, and the associated administrative burden.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to restrictions on further distribution. Access may be granted on a case-by-case basis, with conditions such as non-distribution without explicit permission.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Curriculum for the Ecuadorian training workshops on CS.
| Session Name | Topics Reviewed | Activities | Day |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kickoff, CAMS: atmospheric monitoring | Welcome, keynote speeches, workshop’s objectives, overview of CAMS and Sentinel-5, API data access, atmospheric pollution in Ecuador, processing Sentinel-5 and pollution forecasts | Presentation, demonstration of downloading products, practical exercise | 8 January 2024 |
| CLMS: land monitoring | Overview of CLMS and Sentinel 2, API data access, Ecuador’s forests and deforestation, processing Sentinel 1–2 data, mapping and assessment of deforestation | Presentation, demonstration of downloading products, practical exercise | 9 January 2024, |
| C3S: climate change services | Overview of C3S and climate modeling frameworks, API data access, climate change in Ecuador, modeling of the distribution of crops | Presentation, demonstration of downloading products, practical exercise, brainstorming | 10 January 2024, |
| CEMS: emergency management | Overview of the CEMS emergency management and activation procedure, GUI data access, analysis of the data on the Ecuador 2016 earthquake, collaborative mapping with the QFIELD app | Presentation, demonstration of downloading products, practical exercise, evaluation, satisfaction survey | 11 January 2024, |
| CEMS: early warning systems | Overview of the GloFAS and GDO systems, GUI data access, early warning systems in Ecuador, assessing fire risk with AHP | Presentation, demonstration of downloading products, practical exercise, evaluation | 15 January 2024 |
| CSS: security applications | Overview of CSS and Sentinel-1, applications of CSS to security, territorial security in Ecuador, modeling of illicit crops, and identification of infrastructure | Presentation, practical exercise | 16 January 2024 |
| Sentinel: Data processing | Overview of CDSE and data acquisition portals, processing of Sentinel-1 and interferometric phase data | Presentation, demonstration of downloading products, practical exercise | 18 January 2024 |
| Closure | Workshop plenary, keynote speeches, acknowledgments, distribution of certificates | Brainstorming, evaluation, satisfaction survey | 19 January 2024 |
Program for the Bolivian panel discussions on CS.
| Session Name | Topics Reviewed | Activities | Day |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kickoff | Overview of the Copernicus Program for Bolivian geospatial challenges (environmental, production, strategic sectors) | Presentation, stakeholder roundtable | 14 February 2024 |
| Environmental pillar | Applications of CS with focus on CLMS, C3S, CEMS and CAMS for mapping deforestation and fire, climate change, emergencies management, integration of meteorological local data | Presentation, stakeholder roundtable, survey of needs and capabilities | 15 February 2024 |
| Production pillar | Applications of CS with focus on C3S, CLMS and CEMS for monitoring climate change, agricultural impacts, mapping land and droughts | Presentation, stakeholder roundtable, survey of needs and capabilities | |
| Copernicus Overview | Overview of the Copernicus Program for Bolivian geospatial challenges (environmental, production, strategic sectors) | Presentation | 16 February 2024 |
| Strategic Sectors pillar | Applications of CS for the management of mining and detecting illegal mining activities (CLMS, Sentinel processing) | Presentation, stakeholder roundtable, survey of needs and capabilities | |
| Security pillar | Applications of CS with focus on Sentinel processing for detecting illegal crops, drug labs, and smuggling routes | Stakeholder roundtable, survey of needs and capabilities | 19 February 2024 |
| Closure | Overview of the Copernicus Program for Bolivian geospatial challenges (environmental, production, strategic sectors) | Presentation, stakeholder roundtable, survey of needs and capabilities |
Sessions, objectives, study areas, tasks, and outcomes of the practical exercises in the Ecuadorian training workshops.
| Session Name, Objectives and | Tasks | Outcomes | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAMS: processing Sentinel-5P images for assessing and forecasting atmospheric pollution in continental Ecuador | 1. Processing Sentinel-5 time series products | Differentiate atmospheric pollutants, identify regions with the highest pollution levels, experience ARIMA for forecasting | [ |
| CLMS: processing Sentinel-1 and 2 images to generate maps of deforestation of the Ecuadorian Amazon and validate the resulting cartography | 1. Processing Sentinel 1 and 2 time series for land cover mapping | Observe synergy effects of Sentinel 1 and 2 for land cover classification, experience challenges in validating time series deforestation maps | [ |
| C3S: Rescaling climate models and assess crops’ resilience using models of the future climate in continental Ecuador | 1. Obtain agroclimatic indicators from C3S GUI | Familiarize with C3S climate data download, investigate downscaling procedures and their limitations, and gain experience with crop distribution modeling and future climate impacts | [ |
| CEMS: Examining CEMS emergency data of Ecuador 2016 earthquake and constructing a collaborative mapping project for Cotopaxi volcano risk areas | 1. Exploring the activation of CEMS and downloading rapid mapping maps | Familiarize with CEMS rapid mapping data download, gain experience using it for damaged infrastructure assessment, gain experience in collaborative mapping and data collection | [ |
| CEMS: Implement AHP to assess biophysical fire risk assessment in continental Ecuador | 1. Constructing a survey for collecting AHP data | Explore the CLMS biophysical datasets offered, gain experience in survey design and data processing for AHP, develop expertise for validate spatial models | [ |
| CSS: Modeling illicit crops (Erythroxylum coca) in continental Ecuador and identifying the associated suspicious infrastructure in Ecuador-Colombia frontline 1 | 1. Searching GBIF for the occurrence of illegal species and downloading and cleaning data | Gain experience in using GBIF for downloading and cleaning species data, experiment with parallel processing to speed up climate data downscaling and distribution models processing, become acquainted with Sentinel 1-VIIRS data to identify suspicious infrastructures | [ |
| Sentinel: Automated processing of Sentinel-1 data and generation of interferograms | 1. Downloading and automating the processing of Sentinel-1 GRD images. | Familiarize with CDSE data download, gain experience constructing processing chains for Sentinel-1 GRD, develop expertise in interferometry | [ |
1 Task 3 of this practice was demonstrated during the session on the Security pillar at the Bolivian panel discussions on Copernicus.
Appendix A. Stakeholder Needs and Capabilities Survey
| Type | Answers Alternatives | Question | Groups (Abbreviation) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple choice | Male; Female; Prefer not to say | 1. Which is your gender? | Demographic |
| Open-ended | - | 2. What is your age? | |
| Multiple choice | Graduate; Undergraduate; Technical; Secondary | 3. What is your educational level? (4 options) | |
| Multiple choice | Agriculture; Climatology and Hydrology; Environmental Sciences; Geography; Risk management; Security; Technology and informatics; Others | 4. What is your work specialty? | |
| Open-ended | - | 5. What is the name of your institution? | |
| Multiple choice | <1 yr; 1–2 yrs; 2–5 yrs; 5–10 yrs; >10 yrs | 6. How long have you been working at your institution? (5 options) | Tenure |
| Likert rating | Technical Knowledge; Data Processing; Image Interpretation; Programming; Database Management; Cartography; Spatial Analysis; Modeling; Product Validation | 7. Indicate the competencies you believe you have in geoinformatics | Geoinformatics |
| Multiple choice | Advanced remote sensing; Optical: high resolution; Optical: Medium-low resolution; Meteorological; Radar; No images usage | 8. If you use satellite images in your work, indicate those you have the most experience with | Satellite imagery |
| Multiple choice | Image processing; Cloud-based platforms; GIS; Field data collection; Programming languages; Photogrammetry and LiDAR; No software usage | 9. What type of software do you use to process geoinformation? | Software handling |
| Likert rating | Weather Alerts; Drought and Flood Monitoring; Air and Water Quality; Glacier and lakes Monitoring | 10. Rate your interest in the following topics for a training course on Earth observation systems applied to meteorology and hydrology | Meteorology and Hydrology (Hydrometeorology) |
| Open-ended | - | 11. What other training topics in meteorology and hydrology do you consider interesting? | |
| Likert rating | Disaster Mapping; Vulnerability Assessment; Early Disaster Alerts; Emergency Planning 1 | 12. Rate your interest in the following topics for a training course on Earth observation systems applied to risk and disaster management | Risk and Disaster Management (Risks) |
| Open-ended | - | 13. What other training topics in risk and disaster management do you consider interesting? | |
| Likert rating | Crop Monitoring; Irrigation Management; Crop Resilience; Agricultural Data Analysis | 14. Rate your interest in the following topics for a training course on Earth observation systems applied to agriculture and food security | Agriculture and Food Security (Agriculture) |
| Open-ended | - | 15. What other training topics in agriculture and food security do you consider interesting? | |
| Likert rating | Climate Impact Biodiversity; Forest Cartography; Fire Analysis; GHG Studies; Land Cover Change | 16. Rate your interest in the following topics for a training course on Earth observation systems applied to environmental management | Environment monitoring (Environment) |
| Open-ended | - | 17. What other training topics in environmental management do you consider interesting? | |
| Likert rating | Vessel Detection; Port Mapping; Fishing Area Analysis; Sea Level Erosion | 18. Rate your interest in the following topics for a training course on Earth observation systems applied to marine resource management | Marine management (Marine) 1 |
| Open-ended | - | 19. What other training topics in marine resource management do you consider interesting? | |
| Likert rating | Illicit Crops Identification; Monitor Illegal Crops; Surveillance Detection | 20. Rate your interest in the following topics for a training course on Earth observation systems applied to territorial security (3 options) | Territorial Security (Security) |
| Open-ended | - | 21. What other training topics in territorial security do you consider interesting? | |
| Likert rating | Land Deformation Sentinel-1; Time Series Sentinel-1 2; Phenology Sentinel-3 2; Air Quality Sentinel-5 2; Access APIs; Galileo Processing; Modeling Automatization 1; Statistics Reporting 1 | 22. Rate your interest in the following topics for a training course on Earth observation systems applied to geospatial data processing | Sentinel Data Processing (Sentinel) |
| Open-ended | - | 23. What other training topics in satellite and geospatial data processing do you consider interesting? |
1 Options available only in the survey for the Ecuadorian training workshops. 2 Options available only in the survey for the Bolivian panel discussions on CS.
Appendix B. In-Depth Interview Guide
-
Introduction: Personal introduction, brief description of the objectives of the strengthening plan, and definition of the Copernicus system.
-
Integration with Copernicus: How do you envision the integration of the Copernicus system with the current operations and objectives of your institution?
-
State of Infrastructure: Briefly describe the existing infrastructure in your institution and how it could be adapted or benefit from the Copernicus system.
-
Challenges and Requirements: What are the main challenges or technical requirements you anticipate for the implementation of the Copernicus system in your institution?
-
Impact Evaluation: Once implemented, how do you plan to evaluate the impact of the Copernicus system on the operations and decision-making of your institution?
-
Conclusion: Thank you and request to distribute the survey among their contacts.
Appendix C. Copernicus Services GUIs and APIs Analyzed
Copernicus services web links and names of the GUI and API resources.
| Web Link | Name | Copernicus |
|---|---|---|
| Atmosphere Data Store | CAMS | |
| Atmosphere Data Store API | ||
| Dataset catalogue | CLMS | |
| Copernicus Global Land Service | ||
| TerraCatalogue client API | ||
| Climate Data Store | C3S | |
| Climate Data Store API | ||
| Emergency Management Service—Mapping | CEMS | |
| GHSL—Global Human Settlement Layer | ||
| GloFas-map viewer | ||
| GloFas-floods data | ||
| Global Flood Monitoring (GFM) | ||
| Global Drought Observatory (GDO) | ||
| Copernicus browser | Sentinel data processing | |
| WEkEO | ||
| OData API |
Appendix D. Evaluation Resources
Appendix D.1. First Week Evaluation
-
What are the main functions of the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS)?
-
Monitor and analyze air quality at global and regional levels
-
Directly measure emissions from specific sources like factories or vehicles
-
Analyze and forecast atmospheric variations due to greenhouse gases, pollutants, aerosols, and ozone
-
Control air quality at the local level
-
All of the above
-
The following gases are measured by Sentinel-5’s TROPOMI, EXCEPT:
-
Methane (CH4)
-
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
-
Xenon (Xe)
-
Ozone (O3)
-
None of the above
What types of phenomena and gas emissions can be monitored with CAMS?
-
Smoke from campfires or barbecues
-
Flows and concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
-
Indoor gas levels like in offices, homes, or factories
-
Emissions of ash and sand
-
None of the above
What are the functions of the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS)?
-
Continuously monitor the Earth to identify environmental changes and phenomena
-
Carry out physical actions on the ground, such as reforestation, infrastructure construction, or direct management of natural resources
-
Provide real-time data useful for monitoring land processes
-
Supply rapid and accurate data on land distribution and usage, as well as various biophysical parameters at different levels
-
None of the above
Briefly list 3 applications of Sentinel-2 for land monitoring applications
The following are some of the challenges of CLMS, EXCEPT:
-
Manage and analyze large volumes of satellite data with high accuracy and create reliable predictive models
-
Manage regulations, funding, user education, and cooperation among various disciplines
-
Provide free global access to commercial satellite information and other paid data
-
Deliver comprehensive documentation on the usage and methodology employed in their products
What functions does the Climate Change Service (C3S) perform?
-
Monitor and thoroughly examine climate trends through satellites and ground stations
-
Directly implement climate change mitigation or adaptation projects
-
Provide climate information and forecast models to guide adaptation policies
-
Conduct rescue operations or immediate response to climate emergencies
-
None of the above
What is CMIP?
-
It is an international collaboration that compares climate models from different institutions to better understand and predict climate changes.
-
It is an organization that conducts primary climate research and also develops its own climate models.
-
It is an acronym for implementing climate policies and direct intervention in climate change mitigation or adaptation issues.
-
It is an entity that collects climate data through observations or measurements.
-
None of the above
Indicate the possible emission scenarios according to CMIP6:
-
Inequity
-
Sustainability
-
Fossil-fuel development
-
Regional rivalry
-
None of the above
Which of the services we covered in the first three days of the workshop (CAMS, CLMS, and C3S) interested you the most and why? What do you think is necessary for your colleagues to be able to use them?
Appendix D.2. Second Week Evaluation
-
The following are functions of the Copernicus Emergency Management System (CEMS) EXCEPT:
-
Disaster evacuation plans
-
Generation of rapid maps before, during, and after an emergency
-
Forecasting and continuous monitoring of disasters
-
Providing information about human settlements and the population
-
None of the above
-
Which users from the following list could be authorized to activate the CEMS service?
-
NGOs
-
Public entities
-
European Union delegates
-
International organizations
-
All of the above
Classify the following products from the exposure mapping component of CEMS Classification of Urbanization and Built Environment Indicators.Analytical Population and Urbanization Built Surface Indicator Built Space Construction Statistics Morphological Settlement Areas Degree of Urbanization Land Fraction
The LISFLOOD model of the Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS) models the following hydrological processes EXCEPT:
-
Rain interception
-
Snow melting
-
Surface runoff
-
Upward groundwater flow
-
None of the above
Which indicators are integrated into the Drought Impact Risk for Agriculture (RdrI-Agri)?
-
Various indicators regarding drought hazard, exposure, and vulnerability
-
A combination of biophysical indicators to anticipate droughts
-
Forecast indicators of unusually wet and dry conditions
-
Future climate models and greenhouse gas emission scenarios
-
None of the above
What functions could the Copernicus Security Service (CSS) have?
-
Border and maritime surveillance
-
Monitoring of illegal financial transactions
-
Detection of cyber threats
-
Support for EU external and security actions
-
None of the above
What do you consider the biggest challenge for CSS? Classification of Data Privacy, Security, and Infrastructure Challenges.High Moderate Low Challenge Privacy and ethics due to extensive surveillance use Integration of multisource data Data access while maintaining security and confidentiality Infrastructure maintenance and update
What is the difference between Single Look Complex (SLC) and Ground Range Detected (GRD) images of Sentinel-1?
Which of the following portals to access Sentinel data are commercial?
-
CREODIAS
-
Sentinel Hub
-
WEkEO
-
Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem
-
None of the above
Appendix D.3. Questions Made in the Brainstorming Sessions
Classification of Copernicus Services and Their Applications.
| Categories | Question | Copernicus Service |
|---|---|---|
| Air Quality and Climate Monitoring | How could CAMS be used for air quality monitoring? | CAMS |
| Air Quality and Climate Monitoring | In what ways could it contribute to the study of climate change through greenhouse gas tracking? | |
| Air Quality and Climate Monitoring | How could CAMS be used to support public health policies regarding air quality? | |
| Disaster Management and Resilience | How could CAMS support the management of natural disasters such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions? | |
| Resource Management and Agriculture | How could CLMS be used for the management and monitoring of water resources, including rivers, lakes, and wetlands? | CLMS |
| Resource Management and Agriculture | How could CLMS support agriculture and forestry, especially in terms of crop monitoring and sustainable forest management? | |
| Resource Management and Agriculture | How could CLMS contribute to tracking changes in land use and land cover for urban planning and environmental protection? | |
| Disaster Management and Resilience | How could CLMS facilitate disaster response and risk management, such as floods and droughts? | |
| Resource Management and Agriculture | How can C3S data improve agricultural and water resource management in Ecuador in the face of climate change? | C3S |
| Air Quality and Climate Monitoring | How does C3S help Ecuador in conserving vulnerable ecosystems such as the Amazon and the Galapagos Islands? | |
| Policy and Decision-Making Support | How can C3S support Ecuador in planning resilient infrastructure and managing public health in the face of extreme weather events? | |
| Policy and Decision-Making Support | How do C3S data contribute to the formulation of environmental policies and climate change adaptation strategies in Ecuador? | |
| Policy and Decision-Making Support | What processes and characteristics should be met to request a rapid mapping or response/risk alert in the CEMS system? | CEMS |
| Policy and Decision-Making Support | In the institution where you work, which actors or work groups could prepare the CEMS service request? How would they justify the request? | |
| Policy and Decision-Making Support | How could you coordinate with other institutions to describe the benefits of issuing the CEMS alert? How would you organize these interests into a single CEMS alert report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador? | |
| Disaster Management and Resilience | How can CEMS be used to evaluate and improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and urban planning in Ecuador against natural disasters? | |
| Security and Surveillance | How can Copernicus contribute to border monitoring and the detection of illicit activities? | CSS |
| Security and Surveillance | How feasible is it to integrate Copernicus data with national security systems to improve territorial surveillance? | |
| Security and Surveillance | How could Copernicus be used to monitor the environmental impact of activities such as illegal mining or deforestation? | |
| Security and Surveillance | How could Copernicus data influence political and security decision-making? |
Appendix D.4. Satisfaction Surveys
-
How would you rate the quality and relevance of the content provided in the course?
Appreciation of Content Quality and Relevance for Copernicus Services and Data Processing Sessions.
I Do Not Participate Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory Session/Appreciation CAMS CLMS C3S CEMS CSS Sentinel data processing -
What is your opinion on the teaching methods used by the instructor (e.g., presentations, interactive activities, group discussions)?
Appreciation of Teaching Methods for Copernicus Services and Data Processing Sessions.
I Do Not Participate Very Effective Effective Neutral Ineffective Very Ineffective Session/Appreciation CAMS CLMS C3S CEMS CSS Sentinel data processing -
Did you feel well supported during the course, and do you consider the resources provided (e.g., study materials, access to tools, guidance) to be adequate?
Appreciation of Supporting Material for Copernicus Services and Data Processing Sessions.
I Do Not Participate Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Session/Appreciation CAMS CLMS C3S CEMS CSS Sentinel data processing -
Overall, are you satisfied with the course experience? Would you recommend it to others?
Appreciation of the Course Experience for Copernicus Services and Data Processing Sessions.
I Do Not Participate Definitely Would Recommend Probably Would Recommend Undecided Probably Would Not Recommend Definitely Would Not Recommend Session/Appreciation CAMS CLMS C3S CEMS CSS Sentinel data processing
Appendix E. Post-Event Interviews
-
Application of Knowledge
1. How have you applied the knowledge acquired during the training in your work?
2. What specific problems have you solved using Copernicus tools?
-
Practical Use of Copernicus
3. What Copernicus data have you used to achieve your institution’s goals?
4. Can you share a concrete example of how this data helped in a specific situation?
-
Local Impact and Collaboration
5. How has Copernicus data benefited your institution? Has it influenced strategic or policy decisions? What significant results have been achieved?
6. Do you believe projects based on Copernicus will have a sustainable impact over time? Why?
7. Have you collaborated with other local or regional stakeholders using this data? If so, what were the outcomes?
-
Long-Term Evaluation
8. Since the training, have you noticed improvements in the accuracy or impact of your projects?
9. What metrics or indicators would you use to evaluate these long-term changes?
-
Suggestions
10. Which aspects of the training were most useful for you?
11. What improvements would you recommend for future training sessions?
References
1. Jutz, S.; Milagro-Pérez, M. Copernicus: The European Earth Observation Programme. Rev. Teledetección; 2020; 56, pp. V-XI. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4995/raet.2020.14346]
2. Apicella, L.; De Martino, M.; Quarati, A. Copernicus User Uptake: From Data to Applications. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.; 2022; 11, 121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11020121]
3. Sarvia, F.; Xausa, E.; De Petris, S.; Cantamessa, G.; Borgogno-Mondino, E. A Possible Role of Copernicus Sentinel-2 Data to Support Common Agricultural Policy Controls in Agriculture. Agronomy; 2021; 11, 110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010110]
4. Zeil, P.; Ourevitch, S.; Debien, A.; Pico, U. Copernicus User Uptake–Copernicus Relays and the Copernicus Academy. Proc. GI Forum J. Geogr. Inf. Sci.; 2017; 1, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1553/giscience2017_01_s253]
5. Riedler, B.; Lang, S.; Zeil, P.; Miguel-Lago, M.; Schröder, C.; Politi-Stergiou, N.; Kerschbaumer, M.; Tramutoli, V.; Tzouvaras, M. Copernicus Knowledge and Innovation Hubs. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci.; 2020; XLIII-B5-2020, pp. 35-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2020-35-2020]
6. Wania, A.; Broglia, M.; Kucera, J.; Spruyt, P.; Rossi, M.; Spinoni, J.; Weissteiner, C.; Dorati, C.; Steel, A.; Louvrier, C. et al. 2016 User Workshop of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service–Summary Report. Proceedings of the User Workshop of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (EMS); Ispra, Italy, 15–16 March 2016; Volume 15, 16.
7. Kasmaeeyazdi, S.; Abdolmaleki, M.; Ibrahim, E.; Jiang, J.; Marzan, I.; Rodríguez, I.B. Copernicus Data to Boost Raw Material Source Management: Illustrations from the RawMatCop Programme. Resour. Policy; 2021; 74, 102384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102384]
8. Koubarakis, M.; Stamoulis, G.; Bilidas, D.; Ioannidis, T.; George Mandilaras, G.; Pantazi, G.; Papadakis, G.; Vlassov, V.; Payberah, A.H.; Wang, T. et al. Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Technologies for Copernicus Data: The EXTREMEEARTH Project. Proceedings of the Conference on Big Data from Space, BiDS 2021: From Insights to Foresight; Bucharest, Romania, 18–20 May 2021.
9. Prakash, M.; Ramage, S.; Kavvada, A.; Goodman, S. Open Earth Observations for Sustainable Urban Development. Remote Sens.; 2020; 12, 1646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs12101646]
10. Vincent, C.; Stephen, C. Local Government Capacity Building and Development: Lessons, Challenges and Opportunities. J. Political Sci. Public Aff.; 2015; 3, 149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2332-0761.1000149]
11. Gong, J.; Yue, P.; Woldai, T.; Tsai, F.; Vyas, A.; Wu, H.; Gruen, A.; Wang, L.; Musikhin, I. Geoinformatics Education and Outreach: Looking Forward. Geo-Spat. Inf. Sci.; 2017; 20, pp. 209-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2017.1337319]
12. Chen, F.; Shirazi, Z.; Wang, L. Building Scientific Capacity in Disaster Risk Reduction for Sustainable Development. Cult. Sci.; 2021; 4, pp. 40-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20966083211017330]
13. Brandt, J.S.; Townsend, P.A. Land Use—Land Cover Conversion, Regeneration and Degradation in the High Elevation Bolivian Andes. Landsc. Ecol.; 2006; 21, pp. 607-623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-4120-z]
14. Kleemann, J.; Zamora, C.; Villacis-Chiluisa, A.B.; Cuenca, P.; Koo, H.; Noh, J.K.; Fürst, C.; Thiel, M. Deforestation in Continental Ecuador with a Focus on Protected Areas. Land; 2022; 11, 268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11020268]
15. Santibáñez, F.; Santibáñez, P. Trends in Land Degradation in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Role of Climate Change. Climate and Land Degradation; Sivakumar, M.V.K.; Ndiang’ui, N. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 65-81. ISBN 978-3-540-72438-4
16. Grisaffi, T. Why Is the Drug Trade Not Violent? Cocaine Production and the Embedded Economy in the Chapare, Bolivia. Dev. Chang.; 2022; 53, pp. 576-599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dech.12696]
17. Mestanza-Ramón, C.; Cuenca-Cumbicus, J.; D’Orio, G.; Flores-Toala, J.; Segovia-Cáceres, S.; Bonilla-Bonilla, A.; Straface, S. Gold Mining in the Amazon Region of Ecuador: History and a Review of Its Socio-Environmental Impacts. Land; 2022; 11, 221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11020221]
18. Haack, B.; Ryerson, R. Improving Remote Sensing Research and Education in Developing Countries: Approaches and Recommendations. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf.; 2016; 45, pp. 77-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.11.003]
19. Meyer, F.J.; Flores Cordova, A.; Anderson, E.R.; Cherrington, E.A.; Rosen, P.; Owen, S.E.; McAlpin, D.B.; Zwieback, S.; Griffin, R. The SAR-CBC Project: Experiences and Lessons Learned from Recent SAR Capacity Building Activities. Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts; San Francisco, CA, USA, 9–13 December 2019; Volume 2019, GC41C–04.
20. Nussbaumer, S.U.; Hoelzle, M.; Hüsler, F.; Huggel, C.; Salzmann, N.; Zemp, M. Glacier Monitoring and Capacity Building: Important Ingredients for Sustainable Mountain Development. Mt. Res. Dev.; 2017; 37, pp. 141-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00038.1]
21. Tabor, K.; Dunne, P.; Hewson, J.H.; Martinez, C.; Mendoza, E.; Rosero, C. Harnessing Earth Observations to Support Indigenous-Led Land Management. Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts; Washington, DC, USA, 10–14 December 2018; Volume 2018, PA54A–06.
22. Romijn, E.; Lantican, C.B.; Herold, M.; Lindquist, E.; Ochieng, R.; Wijaya, A.; Murdiyarso, D.; Verchot, L. Assessing Change in National Forest Monitoring Capacities of 99 Tropical Countries. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2015; 352, pp. 109-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.003]
23. Copernicus Program Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) Portal. Available online: https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
24. Copernicus Program Copernicus Marine Monitoring Service (CMEMS) Portal. Available online: http://marine.copernicus.eu (accessed on 30 January 2024).
25. Copernicus Program Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS) Portal. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
26. Copernicus Program Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Portal. Available online: https://climate.copernicus.eu/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
27. Copernicus Program Copernicus Emergency Service (CEMS) Portals. Available online: http://emergency.copernicus.eu (accessed on 30 January 2024).
28. Copernicus Program Copernicus Security Service (CSS). Available online: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/copernicus-services/security (accessed on 30 January 2024).
29. U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Ecuador. Security Alert: 12 January 2024 Nationwide State of Emergency in Ecuador. Available online: https://ec.usembassy.gov/security-alert-12-january-2024-nationwide-state-of-emergency-in-ecuador/ (accessed on 14 August 2024).
30. Brown, R. (Niras, Allerød, Denmark)Sannier, C. (GAF AG, Lille, Hauts-de-France, France)Alba, F. (Niras, Allerød, Denmark). Estudio de Factibilidad Sobre El Uso Potencial de Los Datos Satelitales de Copernicus En Ecuador—SIEA 5821, Technical Assistance Facility: Space and Earth Observation—Global. Unpublished work 2023.
31. OpenAI. OpenAI ChatGPT Based on GPT-4 Architecture 2023; OpenAI: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2023.
32. Copernicus Program Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS). Available online: https://global-flood.emergency.copernicus.eu (accessed on 30 January 2024).
33. Copernicus Program Global Drought Observatory (GDO). Available online: https://drought.emergency.copernicus.eu (accessed on 30 January 2024).
34. Copernicus Program Copernicus Space Data Ecosystem (CDSE) Portal. Available online: https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
35. Copernicus Program WEkEO Portal. Available online: https://www.wekeo.eu/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
36. SatSen European Union Satellite Centre (SatSen) Portal. Available online: https://www.satcen.europa.eu (accessed on 30 January 2024).
37. Copernicus Program Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem Documentation Portal. Available online: https://documentation.dataspace.copernicus.eu/APIs.html (accessed on 30 January 2024).
38. Kaur, J.; Parmar, K.S.; Singh, S. Autoregressive Models in Environmental Forecasting Time Series: A Theoretical and Application Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 19617-19641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25148-9]
39. Copernicus Program EMSR159: Earthquake in Ecuador. Available online: https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/list-of-components/EMSR159 (accessed on 30 January 2024).
40. European CommissionJoint Research Centre. GHSL Data Package 2023; Publications Office: Luxemburg, 2023.
41. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation; McGraw-Hill International Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
42. CLMS Burnt Area 2019—Present (Raster 300 m), Global, Monthly—Version 3.1. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/vegetation/burnt-area-v3-1-monthly-300m (accessed on 14 August 2024).
43. GBIF GBIF|Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
44. Copernicus Climate Change Service. Agrometeorological Indicators from 1979 up to 2019 Derived from Reanalysis 2019; Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS): Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
45. Copernicus Climate Change Service. ERA5-Land Monthly Averaged Data from 1950 to Present 2019; Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS): Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
46. Santos, F.; Calle, N.; Bonilla, S.; Sarmiento, F.; Herrnegger, M. Impacts of Soil Erosion and Climate Change on the Built Heritage of the Pambamarca Fortress Complex in Northern Ecuador. PLoS ONE; 2023; 18, e0281869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281869]
47. Filipponi, F. Sentinel-1 GRD Preprocessing Workflow. Proceedings; 2019; 18, 11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ECRS-3-06201]
48. Campoverde, C.; Noriega, R.; Carrión, P.; Pindo, J.; Recalde, E.; Morante, F. Análisis de Subsidencia Por La Actividad Minera En La Ciudad de Zaruma-Patrimonio Del Ecuador. Caso de Estudio Escuela La Inmaculada. El Patrimonio Geológico y Minero: Identidad y Motor de Desarrollo; Instituto Geológico y Minero de España: Madrid, Spain, 2019; pp. 1017-1031.
49. Helen Cox, K.K.; Yetter, L. Using Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technology for Climate Change Education. J. Geosci. Educ.; 2014; 62, pp. 609-620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5408/13-040.1]
50. Lange, B.; Bürkner, H.-J. Flexible Value Creation: Conceptual Prerequisites and Empirical Explorations in Open Workshops. Geoforum; 2018; 88, pp. 96-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.11.020]
51. Blanc, F.; Cotella, G. Global Urban Development Frameworks Landing in Latin America: Insights from Ecuador and Bolivia. Dev. Policy Rev.; 2023; 41, e12632. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12632]
52. Karl, K.A.; Peluchette, J.V.; Aghakhani, N. Virtual Work Meetings During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Good, Bad, and Ugly. Small Group Res.; 2022; 53, pp. 343-365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10464964211015286]
53. Doty, T.A.; Knox, L.E.; Krause, A.X.; Berzenski, S.R.; Hinkel-Lipsker, J.W.; Drew, S.A. Keep It Brief: Videoconferencing Frequency and Duration as Predictors of Visual and Body Discomfort. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.; 2024; 40, pp. 1150-1161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2132358]
54. Lewis, J. The Use of Mini-Projects in Preparing Students for Independent Open-Ended Investigative Labwork. Biochem. Educ.; 1999; 27, pp. 137-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0307-4412(98)00294-5]
55. Zimmermann, N.; Pluchinotta, I.; Salvia, G.; Touchie, M.; Stopps, H.; Hamilton, I.; Kesik, T.; Dianati, K.; Chen, T. Moving Online: Reflections from Conducting System Dynamics Workshops in Virtual Settings. Syst. Dyn. Rev.; 2021; 37, pp. 59-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1667]
56. Frydenberg, S.G.; Nordby, K. Virtual Fieldwork on a Ship’s Bridge: Virtual Reality-Reconstructed Operation Scenarios as Contextual Substitutes for Fieldwork in Design Education. Virtual Real.; 2023; 27, pp. 3333-3344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00655-1]
57. Vicepresidencia del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. Available online: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14rZXNP3Aj/ (accessed on 30 January 2025).
58. Hintermann, C.; Edlinger, H.; Fasching, M.; Jekel, T. ‘I Learned a Lot about My Classmates …’. Exploring Focus Group Discussions as Learning Environment to Raise Controversial Issues in Geography and Economic Education. Eur. J. Geogr.; 2021; 12, pp. 16-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48088/ejg.c.hin.12.4.016.030]
59. Tucci, G.; Parisi, E.I.; Conti, A.; Corongiu, M.; Fiorini, L.; Panighini, F. Educational and Training Experiences in Geomatics: Tailored Approaches for Different Audience. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.; 2019; XLII-2/W11, pp. 1097-1104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W11-1097-2019]
60. Sarıkaya Levent, Y.; Levent, T. Understanding Perspective of Local Stakeholders. ‘Locals Talking’ Panel Discussions (Workshop Scenario). Sustainable Spatial Planning of Tourism Destinations: Manual for Teachers; SPOT: Lodz, Poland, 2022; pp. 63-71.
61. Xue, B.; Gao, S.; Lin, X. Discussion on the Practical Teaching Mode of Geographic Information of System Course. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Innovation and Multimedia Technology, EIMT 2024; Wuhan, China, 29–31 March 2024.
62. Voelkel, S.; Bennett, D. New Uses for a Familiar Technology: Introducing Mobile Phone Polling in Large Classes. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int.; 2014; 51, pp. 46-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.770267]
63. Lauriola, I.; Lavelli, A.; Aiolli, F. An Introduction to Deep Learning in Natural Language Processing: Models, Techniques, and Tools. Neurocomputing; 2022; 470, pp. 443-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.05.103]
64. Matevosyan, H.; Lluch, I.; Poghosyan, A.; Golkar, A. A Value-Chain Analysis for the Copernicus Earth Observation Infrastructure Evolution: A Knowledgebase of Users, Needs, Services, and Products. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag.; 2017; 5, pp. 19-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MGRS.2017.2720263]
65. Blaschke, T.; Merschdorf, H. Geographic Information Science as a Multidisciplinary and Multiparadigmatic Field. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci.; 2014; 41, pp. 196-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2014.905755]
66. Saah, D.; Tenneson, K.; Matin, M.; Uddin, K.; Cutter, P.; Poortinga, A.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Patterson, M.; Johnson, G.; Markert, K. et al. Land Cover Mapping in Data Scarce Environments: Challenges and Opportunities. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2019; 7, 150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00150]
67. Handoyo, B.; Soekamto, H.; Putra, A.K.; Kamil, P.A.; Wulandari, F. Disaster Preparedness: The Role of Spatial Disaster Learning Using Geospatial Technology. Jamba; 2024; 16, 1576. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v16i1.1576]
68. Riedler, B.; Stéphenne, N.; Aguilar-Moreno, E.; Jagaille, M.; Monfort-Muriach, A.; Fiore, G.; Antoniou, N. Towards Gender Equality in Education and Career in the Earth Observation and GI Sector. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci.; 2021; XLIII-B5-2021, pp. 21-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B5-2021-21-2021]
69. Mittelmeier, J.; Long, D.; Cin, F.M.; Reedy, K.; Gunter, A.; Raghuram, P.; Rienties, B. Learning Design in Diverse Institutional and Cultural Contexts: Suggestions from a Participatory Workshop with Higher Education Professionals in Africa. Open Learn. J. Open Distance E-Learn.; 2018; 33, pp. 250-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1486185]
70. Belgiu, M.; Strobl, J.; Wallentin, G. Open Geospatial Education. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.; 2015; 4, pp. 697-710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4020697]
71. Bauer, T.; Immitzer, M.; Mansberger, R.; Vuolo, F.; Márkus, B.; Wojtaszek, M.V.; Földváry, L.; Szablowska-Midor, A.; Kozak, J.; Oliveira, I. et al. The Making of a Joint E-Learning Platform for Remote Sensing Education: Experiences and Lessons Learned. Remote Sens.; 2021; 13, 1718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs13091718]
72. Hodam, H.; Rienow, A.; Juergens, C. Creating and Testing Explainer Videos for Earth Observation. Remote Sens.; 2021; 13, 4178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs13204178]
73. Rocchini, D.; Petras, V.; Petrasova, A.; Horning, N.; Furtkevicova, L.; Neteler, M.; Leutner, B.; Wegmann, M. Open Data and Open Source for Remote Sensing Training in Ecology. Ecol. Inform.; 2017; 40, pp. 57-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2017.05.004]
74. Wagemann, J.; Fierli, F.; Mantovani, S.; Siemen, S.; Seeger, B.; Bendix, J. Five Guiding Principles to Make Jupyter Notebooks Fit for Earth Observation Data Education. Remote Sens.; 2022; 14, 3359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs14143359]
75. Visman, E.; Vincent, K.; Steynor, A.; Karani, I.; Mwangi, E. Defining Metrics for Monitoring and Evaluating the Impact of Co-Production in Climate Services. Clim. Serv.; 2022; 26, 100297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100297]
76. Gianzi, F.P.; De Santi, A.; De Mei, B.; Ceccarelli, S.; Bertinato, L.; Greco, D. The replication of the educational activities of a course developed by the National Training Program for social health workers for controlling HIV infection. Recenti Prog. Med.; 1993; 84, pp. 843-847. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8108598]
77. Drennon, C. Teaching Geographic Information Systems in a Problem-Based Learning Environment. J. Geogr. High. Educ.; 2005; 29, pp. 385-402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098260500290934]
78. Sawyer, G.; Mamais, E.; Papadakis, D. The Six Dimensions of Value Associated to the Use of Copernicus Sentinel Data: Key Findings From the Sentinel Benefits Study. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2022; 10, 804862. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.804862]
79. O’Brien, C.; Stern, M.J.; Brousseau, J.J.; Hansen, L.J.; Hull, R.B. Participant Perspectives on Effective Elements and Impacts of Climate Change Adaptation Workshops in the United States. Clim. Serv.; 2024; 33, 100436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100436]
80. Wu, J.; Rajesh, A.; Huang, Y.-N.; Chhugani, K.; Acharya, R.; Peng, K.; Johnson, R.D.; Fiscutean, A.; Robles-Espinoza, C.D.; De La Vega, F.M. et al. Virtual Meetings Promise to Eliminate Geographical and Administrative Barriers and Increase Accessibility, Diversity and Inclusivity. Nat. Biotechnol.; 2022; 40, pp. 133-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01176-z]
81. Marques, J.; Guillo, M.; Bas, E.; Ramazanova, M.; Albuquerque, H. Setting Research Priorities for Effective Climate Change Management and Policymaking: A Delphi Study in Bolivia and Paraguay. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 14993. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su152014993]
82. Requelme, N.; Afonso, A. The Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture (CFS-RAI) and SDG 2 and SDG 12 in Agricultural Policies: Case Study of Ecuador. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 15985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su152215985]
83. Maillard, O.; Herzog, S.K.; Soria-Auza, R.W.; Vides-Almonacid, R. Impact of Fires on Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and Priority Bird Species for Conservation in Bolivia. Fire; 2022; 5, 4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fire5010004]
84. Dupuits, E.; Garcés, A.; Llambí, L.D.; Bustamante, M. Strategies for Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation: Localizing Global Approaches into Andean Realities. npj Clim. Action; 2024; 3, 19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00097-8]
85. Farthing, L.; Grisaffi, T. From Alternative Development to Decolonisation: Transforming Drug Crop Policies in Bolivia. J. Dev. Stud.; 2024; 60, pp. 985-1001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2024.2328035]
86. Chinacalle-Martínez, N.; Hearn, A.R.; Boerder, K.; Murillo Posada, J.C.; López-Macías, J.; Peñaherrera-Palma, C.R. Fishing Effort Dynamics around the Galápagos Marine Reserve as Depicted by AIS Data. PLoS ONE; 2024; 19, e0282374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282374]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
The Copernicus program, an initiative by the European Union, offers open-access Earth observation data and high-level products through its services. However, these services are less well known in Latin America, underscoring the need to strengthen capacity-building efforts. In this context, this research examines the design and implementation of training workshops in Ecuador and panel discussions in Bolivia, focusing on the role of Copernicus Services in addressing regional challenges related to Environmental, Food Security, Climate Change, Security, and Risk Management through geospatial technologies. By tailoring training sessions in Ecuador to enhance stakeholders’ capabilities and conducting panel discussions in Bolivia to promote these services among public entities, this research highlights the successes and challenges of these initiatives. We emphasize the importance of flexible event design, alignment with local contexts, and the integration of interactive methodologies to enhance stakeholder engagement and learning outcomes. Additionally, differences and similarities between the event formats are discussed in terms of purposes and objectives, audience engagement, content delivery, attendance, and post-event outcomes. Finally, we outline the convergences and divergences in strategic priorities for future Copernicus Services training initiatives in both countries.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Luisa Di Lucchio 2 ; Manuel Múgica Barrera 3 1 Centro de Investigación Para el Territorio y el Hábitat Sostenible (CITEHS), Universidad Indoamérica, Quito 170301, Ecuador
2 GAF-AG, 80634 Munich, Germany;
3 European Commission (DG INTPA F5), J-54, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium;