Each approach is good at something different.
Field surveys are precise; satellites are wide and frequent. CANOPY sits between them. It does not replace either; it decides where to look first.
Comparison
Four approaches at a glance
| Field inventory | Satellite index maps | International remote-sensing MRV platforms | CANOPY | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage | A few plots | Whole forest | Whole forest | Whole forest (10 m grid) |
| Updates | Every few years | Per scene | Per scene | Per scene, auto-fetched for registered sites |
| Carbon conversion | Field based | Usually none | Own models | KFS statistics × satellite multiplier, formulas published |
| Korean baselines | Yes | No | Usually foreign | KFS stand volume, NIFoS coefficients |
| Candidate decision | Expert review | None | Some | Proceed, review or weak; additionality watch |
| Documents | Written by hand | None | Some | Verra and Gold Standard outline PDF |
| Safety, environment, agriculture | Separate | Separate | Usually none | On the same map |
General characteristics. They vary by organisation and product.
Use them together
Choose from space, confirm on the ground.
Wide with CANOPY
See every forest with one method and decide candidates and order.
Precise in the field
Survey plots only in the chosen forests to save time and money.
Decided by validators
Registration and issuance follow the standard’s methodology and third-party validation.
Related pages
Work with us
Start with a satellite screening of your forests.
Send us your forest boundaries. We screen carbon stock, annual uptake and candidate quality from public satellite data first, then walk through the results with you. No field equipment is needed.