Geo-Resilience Framework
The strategic framework for global resilience architectures

GEDI in Zoonotic Surveillance – Governance Bridge between Earth Observation and One Health

Integrating Structural Visibility, Sensor Logic and Zoonotic Interfaces through a Cairo‑Based Scenario (and Icestorm in USA)

This topic matters deeply to me, which is why I also intend to publish this text in English, Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, French and Russian. If , any errors have inadvertently occurred during translation, I sincerely ask for your understanding — the translation was created with the help of an AI tool. 

The framework is currently available exclusively in English.
Authorized translations may be undertaken following prior approval; the translation itself is the responsibility of the requesting institution or individual

  • English

Zoonotic diseases do not emerge at random; they arise at interfaces — between species, across landscapes, along ecological and human movement corridors, and within the shifting boundary zones between visible and invisible processes. These interfaces are often spatially minute, temporally brief and functionally intricate, which raises a fundamental question: What role can global Earth observation systems play when the aim is to detect ecological changes that may create new points of contact relevant to zoonotic emergence?

The GEDI mission offers a structural perspective on vegetation and landscape, yet this perspective represents only a narrow slice of a much broader observational space. If zoonotic risks materialize at ecological edges, in microhabitats, along animal pathways or within fine transitional zones, it becomes essential to examine how far a large‑scale sensor can render such processes visible and where critical invisibilities arise that matter for biosurveillance and risk assessment.

This framework therefore positions itself as a governance‑oriented bridge between global structural measurements and the fine‑scale, dynamic, functional processes that underpin One Health. Rather than focusing solely on what GEDI shows, the framework interrogates the conditions under which GEDI reveals something, the contexts in which it reveals nothing, the reasons why certain structures become visible, and the implications of this visibility for understanding zoonotic emergence. This shifts attention toward the interplay of scale, sensor logic, data gaps, interpretive boundaries and uncertainty, and toward the question of how governance systems can make these interactions transparent, traceable and epistemically safe.


To translate these conceptual considerations into a concrete context, the framework employs a multi‑layered scenario based on the Greater Cairo Region. This scenario integrates diverse analytical layers, spatial gradients, ecological structures and governance‑relevant perspectives. It demonstrates how global measurement systems intersect with local dynamics, and how structural information — such as the presence of water hyacinths in slowly flowing water bodies — can contextualize One Health analyses and support governance decisions without framing Cairo as a problem case. Instead, Cairo serves as an illustrative environment that reveals how ecological structures, urban transitions and sensor‑based observations interact.

The aim of this work is not merely to offer answers or possible approaches, but to open the right questions — it is this combination that gives the work its distinctive depth:

  • Where is structural information sufficient?
  • Where must it be complemented?
  • Where might misinterpretations arise?
  • Where do data only gain meaning through sensor fusion?
  • And where do invisibilities become governance‑relevant?


Building on these reflections, the framework integrates a wide range of conceptual, analytical and governance‑oriented components designed to make ecological structures more interpretable for Zoonoses and One Health. It highlights underexplored potentials that GEDI could reveal, proposes a set of ecological structural indicators — including a categorised clustering of structural, temporal and dynamic indicators and examines sensor‑related blind spots that may limit interpretability.


At the core of this architecture lies the Evidence Integrity Module (EIM), which provides a structured approach for assessing the visibility, invisibility and interpretability of GEDI‑based information. Questions of scale are addressed through the Scale Governance Submodule (SGM) and a Scale Compatibility Matrix, which evaluate where GEDI’s measurement scales align with or diverge from biosurveillance‑relevant processes. The framework also considers the potential lack of integration between GEDI and other sensors and discusses how three‑dimensional ecological structures could function as early warning signals in contexts where risks emerge before they become directly measurable.

To support systematic reasoning, the framework introduces the scope, boundaries and expansion logic of a 90‑factor set, complemented by an epistemic translation layer and a formal notation for evidence chains that trace how raw data can be transformed into governance‑relevant conclusions. The resulting GEDI Ecological Structure Baseline establishes a governance‑ready foundation, clarifying its core functions, input‑output structure and epistemic boundaries, and demonstrating its application through ecological structural indicators for urban One Health contexts — including the scenario example developed for Cairo.

A complementary second framework, EO Layer – Architecture of Zoonosis Prevention and Resilience, is currently under development and will extend the present work by addressing the architectural and operational dimensions of Earth‑observation‑based zoonosis prevention.

Zoonoses rank among the most significant and at the same time most underestimated — risks of our era. They emerge where ecological, economic and social interfaces converge: in transition zones between wildlife, livestock and humans; in markets; in agricultural clusters; in coastal settlements; or at seemingly mundane contact points such as water sources, waste sites or broken fences. Often, a single spillover moment is enough to destabilize global supply chains, strain health systems and unsettle societal stability.
The core problem is that traditional surveillance systems react too late. The invisible pre‑phase — the period in which risks emerge, intensify and spread — frequently remains unmonitored. Whether animal diseases, environmental crises or social disruptions, the pattern is consistent: our societies possess mechanisms for reaction, but lack genuine resilience strategies. Many structures are reactive rather than resilient.

The reality is alarming. African Swine Fever has reached Spain — a country with more than 54 million pigs and annual exports worth around 8 billion euros. It is assumed that a single contaminated sandwich, eaten by wild boar, triggered a cascade of events: military emergency measures, import bans and the sobering realization that no vaccine exists. Such outbreaks threaten not only agriculture but also the stability of supply chains and societies.

We tend to act only when it is already too late. Early‑warning systems and edge‑zone triggers are missing in many places or are not used consistently.

My aim is to help close this gap. Through strategic concepts, I seek to contribute to the development of a more robust, multipolar early‑warning system that connects science, policy and civil society and enables preventive action. In this context, Earth Observation (EO) is not a technical add‑on but a strategic instrument: it illuminates the invisible bridges between environment, animals and humans and it can empower us not only to respond to zoonoses, but to anticipate and prevent them.


A supplementary space for my reflection (outside the framework) - 28.01.2026

Zoonotic interfaces are not merely structural; they are highly dynamic. They shift with seasons, climatic stress, hydrological change, vegetation collapse, or altered animal movements. While GEDI provides a structural baseline perspective on ecological architecture (Dubayah et al., 2020), ICESat‑2 introduces a fundamentally different observational logic. Its photon‑counting ATLAS technology enables temporally high‑resolution, seasonally sensitive, and fine‑scale vertical measurements along closely spaced repeat tracks (Markus et al., 2017; Neumann et al., 2019).

In the context of zoonotic emergence processes, this distinction is critical. Spillover risks rarely arise from stable ecological states; they emerge from structural transitions, stress‑induced movements, and temporally shifting contact zones (Pettorelli et al., 2014; UNEP, 2020). ICESat‑2 therefore expands the observational space of this framework by adding a dynamic layer that GEDI alone cannot capture.

ICESat‑2 as a Sensor of Ecological Dynamics

The photon‑counting architecture of ICESat‑2 enables the detection of fine‑scale vertical and horizontal changes in vegetation, snow, ice, water levels, and surface roughness with sub‑meter resolution along the satellite’s ground track (Neumann et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2020). These changes are not mere environmental fluctuations; they represent risk‑relevant transitions that influence:
• wildlife movement corridors
• habitat compression under stress
• seasonal concentration zones
• contact interfaces along water edges
• vegetation collapse following storms or droughts

ICESat‑2 has already been successfully used to quantify storm damage, canopy collapse, and vegetation change (Jiang et al., 2021; Rogers et al., 2021; Hancock et al., 2022).

While GEDI shows what is there, ICESat‑2 shows how it changes.

Seasonal and Stress‑Driven Contact Zones

Because of its repeat‑track orbit, ICESat‑2 is, in my view, particularly well suited to making the following processes visible:
• leaf‑off phases that expose understory corridors (Neuenschwander & Pitts, 2019)
• drought‑induced vegetation thinning (Hancock et al., 2022)
• flood‑driven shifts in wildlife movement
• storm‑ or ice‑induced canopy collapse (Rogers et al., 2021)
• changes in water surfaces that influence wildlife aggregation (Smith et al., 2020)

These processes create temporary but high‑risk contact zones that may remain invisible in GEDI’s structural snapshots.

In the Cairo scenario, ICESat‑2 could potentially make the following patterns visible:
• seasonal narrowing of green corridors
• shifts in the distribution of water hyacinths
• vegetation stress along canal systems
• compression of livestock–wildlife interfaces during dry periods

In the U.S. ice‑storm scenario, ICESat‑2 could potentially detect:
• canopy collapse (Rogers et al., 2021)
• altered snow cover
• newly formed wildlife movement corridors created by fallen trees
• temporarily exposed understory structures

From a governance perspective, ICESat 2 and GEDI form a complementary epistemic pair.

ICESat‑2 as a Dynamic Risk Sensor in the One‑Health Context

ICESat 2 could be understood as a dynamic risk sensor in the One Health context because its measurement logic does not merely generate metric elevation values, but could potentially provide a temporally resolved layer of evidence that is epistemically crucial for identifying zoonotic risks. Whereas classical elevation measurements capture only a static ontology of the surface at a single point in time, ICESat 2 could — through its high repeat frequency — detect temporal gradients, disturbance dynamics, and ecological stress signatures, that is, the very processes in which risk constitutes itself before it becomes visible. From an epistemological perspective, this is essential because spillover risks do not emerge in stable structures but in phases of instability, transitional spaces, and ecological compression. ICESat 2 could make precisely these transitional zones visible: drought induced vegetation thinning, storm induced canopy collapse, shifting water edges, or temporarily exposed understory corridors. In doing so, the sensor would not only capture what exists but how ecological interfaces shift, narrow, fragment, or reopen. By combining GEDI’s structural depth with its own temporal resolution, ICESat 2 could provide a two dimensional epistemic architecture: GEDI as the structural baseline, ICESat 2 as the temporal deviation logic. Operationally, ICESat 2 could thus become a governance instrument that indicates when interventions need to be timed, where temporary risk corridors emerge, and which invisibilities only become detectable through change. In this perspective, ICESat 2 could not only complement One Health surveillance but epistemically transform it by extending static maps with a previously missing temporal architecture of risk, thereby creating a dynamic evidence layer that could fundamentally reshape future risk, health and governance systems.

Why ICESat 2 should be treated as a separate observation level

ICESat 2 is not “just another LiDAR sensor.” It is a dynamic sensor, and dynamic sensors require their own interpretation logic.

We will see what the future holds in this area and whether this idea will be taken up anywhere in the world ... It would certainly be necessary in any case.


My participation in NASA’s ARSET training was a valuable opportunity to become familiar with the practical application of GEDI from a global perspective. Particularly enriching was the openness of the format, which offered insights into different approaches, questions and application contexts.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the ARSET team and NASA. The opportunity to take part in such an important program creates a space in which professionals from around the world can learn together, exchange experiences and develop new perspectives.

It was precisely this diversity of viewpoints that inspired me to think further and to develop my own approaches — not as an alternative, but as a complementary contribution to a landscape that is constantly evolving. Programs like ARSET make a very important global contribution: they open doors, stimulate reflection and foster exchange. 

My gratitude also extends to all those around the world who dedicate themselves with great care and professional depth to the study of zoonoses, One Health, and the diverse dynamics at the human–animal–environment interface. Their work — often carried out in the background, frequently under enormously challenging conditions, and always in interdisciplinary constellations — demonstrates how essential shared learning, continuous observation, and responsible knowledge development are for our global systems. This commitment creates a quiet yet indispensable resonance space in which new approaches can emerge, and in which this framework, too, finds its place.

BioSensGlobal is a deeply personal project for me — an initiative directly connected to the GEDI Framework for Zoonotic Surveillance, which I developed as a governance bridge between Earth Observation and One Health. 

Please follow me as we continue to build this vision together ...

BioSens Scouts

BioSens Scout Concepts




#Zoonoses #OneHealth #PlanetaryHealth #HealthSecurity #GlobalResilience #PreventionFirst #EarthObservation #GEDI #RemoteSensing #EcologicalStructures #EOForHealth #EarlyWarning #RiskAnticipation #ResilienceGovernance #InterfaceRisks #HumanAnimalEnvironment #InterfaceEcology #SpilloverPrevention #Biointerfaces #NASAARSET #CapacityBuilding #GlobalCollaboration #KnowledgeSharing


Source

  • Dubayah, R., Armston, J., Healey, S., Bruening, J., Patterson, P. L., Kellner, J., Duncanson, L., Tang, H., Hancock, S., Blair, J. B., Hofton, M., Luthcke, S., Fatoyinbo, T., & Silva, C. (2020). The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation: High-resolution laser ranging of the Earth’s forests and topography. Science of Remote Sensing, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srs.2020.10000
  • Hancock, S., Armston, J., Hofton, M., Sun, X., Tang, H., Duncanson, L., Kellner, J., Dubayah, R., & Silva, C. (2022). The structure, function, and dynamics of vegetation revealed by ICESat 2 photon data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 268, 112760. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425721004806?via%3Dihub
  • Jiang, S., Yang, X., Chen, B., & Li, X. (2021). Detecting storm-induced forest damage using ICESat 2 photon-counting lidar data. Remote Sensing, 13(4), 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040678
  • Markus, T., Neumann, T., Martino, A., Abdalati, W., Brunt, K., Csatho, B., Farrell, S., Fricker, H., Gardner, A., Harding, D., Kwok, R., Magruder, L., Lubin, D., Luthcke, S., Morison, J., Nelson, R., Neuenschwander, A., Palm, S., Popescu, S., … Zwally, H. J. (2017). The Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite 2 (ICESat 2): Science requirements, concept, and implementation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 190, 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.029
  • Neumann, T. A., Martino, A. J., Markus, T., Bae, S., Bock, M. R., Brenner, A. C., Brunt, K. M., Cavanaugh, J., Fernandes, S. T., Hancock, D. W., Harbeck, K., Lee, J., Kurtz, N. T., Luthcke, S. B., Magruder, L. A., Pennington, T. A., Ramos-Izquierdo, L., Rebold, T., Skoog, J., Thomas, T. (2019). The Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite 2 mission: A global geolocated photon product derived from the Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System. Remote Sensing of Environment, 233, 111325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111325
  • Neuenschwander, A. L., & Pitts, K. L. (2019). The ATL08 land and vegetation product for ICESat 2: Algorithm overview and early results. Remote Sensing, 11(14), 1721. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11141721
  • Pettorelli, N., Ryan, S., Mueller, T., Bunnefeld, N., Jedrzejewska, B., Lima, M., & Kausrud, K. (2014). The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): Unforeseen successes in animal ecology. Climate Research, 60(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01204
  • Rogers, B. M., Buotte, P., & Law, B. (2021). ICESat 2 reveals canopy collapse and forest structural change following extreme storms. Environmental Research Letters, 16(12), 124056. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3b0d
  • Smith, B., Fricker, H. A., Gardner, A. S., Siegfried, M. R., Adusumilli, S., Csatho, B., Holschuh, N., Nilsson, J., Paolo, F. S., & Brunt, K. M. (2020). Pervasive ice sheet mass loss reflects competing ocean and atmosphere processes. Science, 368(6496), 1239–1242. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz584
  • UNEP. (2020). Preventing the Next Pandemic: Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/preventing-future-zoonotic-disease-outbreaks


This contribution was authored by Birgit Bortoluzzi, strategic architect and certified Graduate Disaster Manager. The content reflects original interdisciplinary synthesis developed within the framework of the Geo-Resilience Initiative.