Advertisement

The Assessment of Global Trends in Land Degradation

  • Uriel N. Safriel
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

The motivation for quantitative assessment of land degradation at a global scale is its recognition as an environmental issue of global societal implications. Yet, due to the non-robust definition of “land degradation” and to the paucity of field data, the five global assessments carried out and presented between 1977 and 2003 differ in the selection of measurable attributes of land degradation, in the quality of the data sets, and in their spatial coverage. This resulted in a plethora of degradation estimates ranging 15% to 63% of global degradation and 4% to 74% of dryland degradation. Of these, the figure of 70% degradation (for the drylands only, comprising 41% of global land) has been cited more than the others. Though likely to be overly exaggerated (because it stands for a combination of degradation degree of a land unit and its spatial extent within the mapping unit of which it is a part), this high estimate has apparently served well the globality notion of the dryland degradation syndrome, essential to rallying support for international development assistance under the UNCCD. This thirst for development assistance aimed at “combating desertification” attracted to the UNCCD some 70 non-dryland developing countries (compared to 93 developing dryland country Parties) which experience land degradation that is not included in global assessments of desertification, since only dryland degradation qualifies as “desertification”. The texts of the various assessments, including that of GLASOD as well as the UNCCD definition often trade off “desertification” with “susceptibility” to or “threat” of desertification. This suggests that an assessment of vulnerability to desertification rather than its actual occurrence are of higher credibility and utility for policy- and decision-making.

Though soil degradation featured highly in the currently available global degradation assessments, remotely-sensed vegetation attributes not only assess the most valued but threatened ecosystem service, but are also amenable for assessment at the global scale. However, caution is required when using this tool especially in drylands where productivity is tightly linked to rainfall variations. The monitoring required to meet the persistence criterion for qualifying desertification can be also used to detect current desertification trends, which are of relevance for policy-making even more than defining current desertification status. To discern changes of productivity due to state of the land from those due to rainfall features, the ratio of NPP to rainfall (RUE) could be useful were it not negatively correlated with rainfall itself. An alternative method for detecting degradation trends, the Residual NPP Trends (RESTREND) is currently under development. It is based on an analysis of the residuals of the productivity-rainfall relationship throughout a time period for each pixel in the explored region. A statistically significant negative regression of the residuals on time identifies a degradation trend, and the slope stands for its magnitude. To be reliable on a global scale such a remote-sensing approach would serve for guiding field observations required for its own verification.

Keywords

Land Degradation Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Global Environment Facility Degradation Trend Develop Country Party 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnalds O, Dorarinsdottir EF, Metusalemsson S, Jonsson A, Gretarsson E, Arnason A (2001) Soil Erosion in Iceland. Soil Conservation Service, Gutenberg.Google Scholar
  2. Blaikie P, Brookfield H (1987) Land Degradation and Society. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  3. Bridges EM, Oldeman LR (1999) Global Assessment of Human-Induced Soil Degradation. Arid Soil Res Rehab 13:319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chasek PS, Corell E (2002) Addressing desertification at the international level. The institutional system. In: Reynolds JF, Stafford-Smith DM (eds.) Global Desertification: Do Humans Cause Deserts? Dahlem University Press, Berlin, pp. 275–194Google Scholar
  5. Diamond J (2005) Collapse. How societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Dregne HE (1977) Generalized map of the status of desertification of arid lands. A/CONF 74/31. United Nations Conference on Desertification, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
  7. Dregne HE (1983) Desertification of Arid Lands. London, Harwood Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  8. Dregne HE (2002) Land degradation in the drylands. Arid Land Res Manag 16:99–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dregne HE, Chou N (1992) Global desertification and costs. In: H.E. Dregne (Ed.), Degradation and restoration of arid lands. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, pp. 249–282Google Scholar
  10. Eswaran H, Reich PF (1998) Desertification: a global assessment and risks to sustainability. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Soil Science, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
  11. Eswaran H, Lal R, Reich PF (2001a) Land degradation: An overview. In: E.M. Bridges et al. (Eds.), Response to land degradation. Science Publishers, Inc., Enfield (NH), pp. 20–35. Acessible at http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/papers/land-degradation-overview.htmlGoogle Scholar
  12. Eswaran H, Reich P, Beinroth F (2001b) Global Desertification Tension Zones. In: Stott DE, Mohtar RH, Steinhardt GC (eds) Sustaining the Global Farm. Selected papers from the 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting held May 24–29 1999 at Purdue University and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, pp. 24–28. The conference paper is accessible at http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/papers/tensionzonepaper.htmlGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans J, Geerken R (2004) Discriminating between climate and human-induced dryland degradation. J Arid Environ 57:535–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (no date a) Land Degradation Severity. In: Land and Water TERRASTAT statistics. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/terrastat/wsrout.asp?wsreport=4&region=8&search=Display+stati stics+%21#top Accessed February 2007Google Scholar
  15. FAO (no date b) National Soil Degradation Maps in: http://www.fao.org/landandwater/agll/glasod/glasodmaps.jsp?country=%25&search=Display+map+%21 Accessed February 2007Google Scholar
  16. FAO (1986) 1986 Yearbook. Volume 40, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 306 pp.Google Scholar
  17. FAO (2002) Soil Degradation Assessment. TERRASTAT CD-ROM (FAO Land and Water Digital Media Series # 20). ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/landdegradationassessment.docGoogle Scholar
  18. GEF (1999) Report of the STAP expert group workshop on land degradation, Bologna, Italy, 14–16 June 1999. GEF/C.14/Inf.15Google Scholar
  19. Grohs F (1994) Economics of soil degradation, erosion and conservation: A case study of Zimbabwe. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel, KG, Kiel.Google Scholar
  20. GRID (1991) Global Assessment of Human Induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD). A User Guide to the Global Digital Database. http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/results.phpGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillel DJ (1991) Out of Earth. Civilization and the life of the soil. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. ISRIC (no date) World Soil InformationGoogle Scholar
  23. http://www.isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/Projects/Track+Record/GLASOD.htmGoogle Scholar
  24. Lantieri D (no date). Potential use of satellite remote sensing for land degradation assessment in drylands. Application to the LADA project. Accessed in March 2007 from LADA website: http://lada.virtualcentre.org/pagedisplay/display.asp?section=methodGoogle Scholar
  25. Le Houerou HN (1984) Rain use efficiency: A unifying concept in arid-land ecology. J Arid Environ 7:213–247Google Scholar
  26. Lepers E (2003) Synthesis of the Main Areas of Land-cover and Land-use Change. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Final Report. Available at www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC/lucc.html.Google Scholar
  27. Lepers E, Lambin EF, Janetos AC, DeFries R, Achard F et al. (2005) A synthesis of rapid land-cover change information for the 1981–2000 period. BioScience 55: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. LUCC (no date) Land Use and Land Cover Change: Synthesis on the main areas of land-cover and land-use change http://www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC/lucc.htmlGoogle Scholar
  29. Middleton N, Thomas D (1997) World Atlas of Desertification. Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  30. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  31. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005b) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Desertification Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Nielsen TT, Adriansen HK (2005) Government policies and land degradation in the Middle East. Land Degrad Dev 16:151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NRCS (no date) World Soil Resources Map Index http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/Google Scholar
  34. Oldeman LR (1988) Guidelines for general assessment of the status of human-induced soil degradation. Wageningen, ISRICGoogle Scholar
  35. Oldeman LR (1994) The global extent of soil degradation. In: Greenland DJ, Szabolcs I (eds.) Soil resilience and Sustainable Land Use, CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 99–118Google Scholar
  36. Oldeman LR, Van Engelen VWP, Pulles JHM (1990) The extent of human-induced soil degradation. Annex 5. In: Oldeman LR, Hakkeling RTA, Sombroek WG (eds.) World map of the status of human-induced soil erosion: an explanatory note. 2nd ed.— Wageningen, The Netherlands: International Soil Reference and Information Centre.Google Scholar
  37. Oldeman LR, Hakkeling RTA, Sombroek EG (1991) World Map of the Status of Human-induced Land Degradation. An Explanatory Note. International Soil Reference and Information Center, and the United Nations Environment Program. http://www.isric.org/isric/webdocs/Docs/ExplanNote.pdfGoogle Scholar
  38. Prince SD, De Colstoun EB, Kravitz LL (1998) Evidence from rain-use efficiencies does not indicate extensive Sahelian desertification. Global Change Biol 4:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prince SD (2002) Spatial and temporal scales for detection of desertification. In: Reynolds JF, Stafford-Smith DM (eds.) Global Desertification: Do Humans Cause Deserts? Dahlem University Press, Berlin, pp. 23–40Google Scholar
  40. Prince SD (2004) Mapping desertification in Southern Africa In: Gutman G, Janetos A, Justice CO et al. (eds.) Land Change Science: Observing, Monitoring, and Understanding Trajectories of Change on the Earth’s Surface. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 163–184.Google Scholar
  41. Reshef, I. (2003) Reduced Productivity Mapping in Zimbabwe Phase II: Exploring new methods for LNS productive potential classification by incorporating soil data and implementing a K-prototypes clustering Algorithm. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Maryland at College ParkGoogle Scholar
  42. Safriel U, Adeel Z (2005) Dryland Systems. In: Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (eds.) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends. Island Press, Washington, pp. 623–662Google Scholar
  43. Symeonakis E, Drake N (2004) Monitoring desertification and land degradation over sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Remote Sens 25: 573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tobler W, Deichmann V, Gottsegen J, Maloy K (1995) The global demography project. Technical Report TR-95-6. National Center for Geographic Information analysis. Univ. Santa Barbara, CA. 75 pp.Google Scholar
  45. UN (1993) Agenda 21: Earth Summit — The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio (Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 Jun, 1992). http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htmGoogle Scholar
  46. UN (no date) United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Published by the Secretariat of the UNCCD, Bonn. http://www.unccd.intGoogle Scholar
  47. UNCCD (2004) UNCCD 10 years on. Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn.(ISBN 92-95043-00-8)Google Scholar
  48. UNESCO (1977) World map of arid zones 1/25,000,000, Explanatory Notes. MAB Technical notes No. 7 UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  49. WCED (UN World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  50. Wessels KJ, Prince SD, Frost PE, van Zyl D (2004) Assessing the effects of human-induced land degradation in the former homelands of northern South Africa with a 1 km AVHRR NDVI time-series. Remote Sens Environ 91:47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wessels KJ, Prince SD, Malherbe J, Small J, Frost PE, VanZyl D (2007) Can human-induced land degradation be distinguished from the effects of rainfall variability? A case study in South Africa. J Arid Environ 68:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uriel N. Safriel
    • 1
  1. 1.RockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations