Next Article in Journal
Drought Impacts, Coping Responses and Adaptation in the UK Outdoor Livestock Sector: Insights to Increase Drought Resilience
Previous Article in Journal
From Rural Spaces to Peri-Urban Districts: Metropolitan Growth, Sparse Settlements and Demographic Dynamics in a Mediterranean Region
Previous Article in Special Issue
Developing a Landscape Design Approach for the Sustainable Land Management of Hill Country Farms in New Zealand
Open AccessArticle

Structural Variations in the Composition of Land Funds at Regional Scales across Russia

1
School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China
2
Faculty of Social and Cultural Service and Tourism, Stavropol State Agrarian University, Stavropol 355017, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2020, 9(6), 201; https://doi.org/10.3390/land9060201
Received: 12 May 2020 / Revised: 10 June 2020 / Accepted: 17 June 2020 / Published: 17 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multiple Roles for Landscape Ecology in Future Farming Systems)

Abstract

In recent decades, Russia has experienced substantial transformations in agricultural land tenure. Post-Soviet reforms have shaped land distribution patterns but the impacts of these on agricultural use of land remain under-investigated. On a regional scale, there is still a knowledge gap in terms of knowing to what extent the variations in the compositions of agricultural land funds may be explained by changes in the acreage of other land categories. Using a case analysis of 82 of Russia’s territories from 2010 to 2018, the authors attempted to study the structural variations by picturing the compositions of regional land funds and mapping agricultural land distributions based on ranking “land activity”. Correlation analysis of centered log-ratio transformed compositional data revealed that in agriculture-oriented regions, the proportion of cropland was depressed by agriculture-to-urban and agriculture-to-industry land loss. In urbanized territories, the compositions of agricultural land funds were predominantly affected by changes in the acreage of industrial, transportation, and communication lands. In underpopulated territories in the north and far east of Russia, the acreages of cropland and perennial planting were strongly correlated with those of disturbed and barren lands. As the first attempt at such analysis in Russia, the conversion of cadastral classification data into land-rating values enabled the identification of region-to-region mismatches between the cadaster-based mapping and ranking-based distribution of agricultural lands.
Keywords: agricultural land; cropland; land category; land fund; territory; Russia agricultural land; cropland; land category; land fund; territory; Russia

1. Introduction

Structural alterations in land use have been intrinsically associated with a growing demand for food [1,2]. Increasingly, contemporary processes of progressing urbanization and industrialization have been aggravating the conflicts between different functional land types [3]. As land systems represent a critical intersection between economic and ecological systems [4], land distribution patterns are becoming more vulnerable to a variety of environmental and social issues. Out of the one-fifth of the world’s total land surface, which is potentially suitable for crop production, more than half is already actively cultivated [5]. Further agricultural expansion is hampered by natural and geographical factors [6], pervasive land-use change impacts [7], high economic costs [8], and infrastructure constraints [9]. At the same time, according to DeFries et al. [10], Ajani [11], and Lambin [12], agricultural production tends to face increasing competition for land with other types of land use. Over recent decades, many scholars and practitioners, including Platt [13], Briggs and Yurman [14], Vining et al. [15], and Sioen et al. [16], among others, have been reporting the irreversible removal of substantial areas of land previously used for agriculture to urban, industrial, infrastructure, and other types of use instead. Urbanization and industrialization intensify competition between agricultural and non-agricultural land-use practices [17]. Along with industrial development and urban sprawl, there are significant alterations of land use far beyond city limits that result in arable land loss [18].
Generally, at a regional scale, agricultural lands do not strictly compete with other categories for the same land areas due to the specific climate, soil, and topographical requirements for farming. However, in land-abundant and climate-diverse countries, the geographical distribution of agricultural land use tends to adjust to better match land quality [19]. Russia is aa good example of aa country that can be used to demonstrate this fact. Agriculture abandonment in vast northern and eastern areas has occurred in parallel with a concentration of intensive agriculture in fertile lands in the southern, western, and central regions of the country. In Russia, agricultural lands only represent 12.96% of the total national land fund (cropland at 7.16%, rangeland at 3.99%, hayfields at 1.40%, fallow at 0.28%, and perennial plantings at 0.11%). Per-territory concentrations of agricultural land vary from 75.32% in the Southern Federal District and 70.96% in the North Caucasian Federal District to only 4.05% in the Northwestern Federal District and 1.30% in the Far Eastern Federal District.
We clarified the definitions of the main terms used in this study as follows:
  • District—A type of supraregional administrative division of Russia, which includes several territories based on a geographical principle (currently, eight federal districts exist).
  • Land distribution—how lands of particular categories are spread out in a country, district, or territory.
  • Land fund—the total of available land resources in a country, district, or territory.
  • Land fund composition—a division of a land fund into land categories.
  • Land use—the total of arrangements, activities, and inputs that people undertake in a certain land cover type.
  • Territory—an umbrella term to designate various types of administrative divisions of the Russian Federation (oblasts, krais, republics, autonomous districts, and autonomous republics).
The disproportions of agricultural land distribution are, to some extent, caused by economic factors, not only geographic and natural conditions. Similar to most post-socialist countries, Russia has experienced dramatic changes in land ownership and land tenure since the early 1990s. Among the principal transformations, Lerman and Shagaida [20] have outlined the privatization of agricultural land, rights to agricultural land for individual landowners, and the removal of prohibitions on buying and selling land. The land market has responded positively to the liberalization with an increase in transactions between individual landowners [20]. However, the domination of shared and joint land ownership has weakened the role of the state in controlling land use [21] and has increased the fragmentation of public land property into many scattered units [22]. Almost twelve million land shares (certificates) were distributed between rural individuals and former employees of collective and state farms [23]. According to Trukhachev et al. [23], Lerman and Shagaida [20], Rozhkov [24], and Visser et al. [25], land reform in Russia has significantly contributed to structural variations in the composition of land funds. The proportion of agricultural land in the total land fund has been declining due to a loss of arable land, particularly in the vast areas of the Far Eastern Federal District and the Siberian Federal District [26]. From 1990 to 2000, the rate of land abandonment in Russia was above 30%, one of the highest among the economies in transition [27]. Milanova [28] reported a decrease in the cropped area for all crops during the 1990s due to the changes in land tenure and stagnation of the agricultural sector. A drastic decline in livestock production resulted in a reduction of hayfields and rangelands. Vast areas of arable land were abandoned due to land degradation. In some territories in the central, northern, and eastern parts of the country, humus content dropped by 50%. Prishchepov et al. [29] revealed the correlation between the spatial distribution of abandoned croplands and natural factors, such as inadequate precipitation and shorter growing periods, in both Siberia and eastern parts of the country. As many farms were situated in the boreal zone, some of the abandoned lands have experienced shrub and tree encroachment [30].
Many experts report an aggravated environmental degradation of agricultural lands due to over-exploitation [31,32]. The changes in land cover and land use in forest-steppe and steppe vegetation zones (agriculture-oriented territories of southern Russia, the European center, and southern parts of Ural and Siberia) have been driven by extensive farming. Milanova [28] and Milanova et al. [33] reported that up to 90% of lands in some territories were converted to crop production. However, where environmental concerns of land use are mentioned in either federal or regional legislation, they predominantly relate to reducing industrial emissions or waste disposal in urban and suburban areas, not to agricultural land use [34]. Over 40 million hectares of cropland is now abandoned in Russia, and another 58 million is eroded. Land degradation, along with desertification due to irrational land use, poses serious environmental, economic, and social threats in the long-term. Griewald et al. [34] argued that the land use context in Russia did not support a transition towards sustainable land management, i.e., a “use of land resources, including soils, water, animals, and plants, for the production of goods to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions” [35]. The urban expansion causes shrinkage of arable and other categories of agricultural land [36], which are transferred to various non-agricultural types of land use. A considerable amount of agricultural land loss due to urbanization and industrialization takes place on fertile soil [37] and irrigated lands [38]. In return, the increase in agricultural land acreage occurs on soils that are lower in terms of their fertility. Prishchepov et al. [39], Brueckner [40], and Brown et al. [41] raised concern over the growing concentration of arable land in smaller and more fragmented locations in proximity to urban and industrialized areas. Erma et al. [42] reported many cases where residential settlements occupied agricultural land in southern and central parts of the country, which are known as the breadbasket regions of Russia.
With increased variability in the composition of land funds, a reliance on research in this area has become more critical. In a series of empirical studies, many authors, including Verburg et al. [43], Van Doorn and Bakker [44], Nainggolan et al. [45], and Diogo and Koomen [46], among others, have attempted to construct hypotheses about the relationship between proximate driving forces and agricultural land-use patterns. The problem is that the established hypotheses do not adequately explain the causality between land-use processes and the compositions of land funds at different regional scales. In transition economies, including Russia, where land reforms have dramatically changed the distribution of the land inventory in recent decades [42], variations in agricultural lands due to the pressure of non-agricultural land use have remained under-investigated. The composition of agricultural land funds has commonly been considered out of a non-agricultural context [47,48], instead of exploring the interactions between the proportions of agricultural, urban, infrastructure, and industrial lands. Most of the studies have applied a proportion of agricultural land in a land fund as a core territorial specification without further testing for alternative non-agricultural land use variables [4]. Therefore, in regional studies, a knowledge gap has emerged in terms of how the variations in the compositions of land funds may be tracked with an aim to optimize agricultural land use. A more explicit focus on the relationships between land categories is required to be able to explain and predict land system dynamics in diverse locations [49]. With this background, in the case of Russia, this study aimed to contribute to the body of knowledge on regional scale land uses by identifying structural variations in the compositions of territory land funds and revealing the interdependencies between the proportions of agricultural, on the one side, and urban, industrial, and other types of land on the other.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was a quantitative study that was performed based on the data obtained from land registers from 82 out of 85 of the administrative entities of Russia (further detailed in Section 2.6). Russian public statistics report thirteen land categories within land funds, including five agricultural and eight non-agricultural ones. As we aimed to study structural variations in the compositions of land funds by identifying the changes in the proportions of different lands, all thirteen land categories were considered here (the definitions are given in Section 2.1). The overarching methods adopted in this study included a ranking of the territories on the degree of agricultural land activity (see Section 2.2 and Section 2.3), centered log-ratio transformation of compositional land share data to an unconstrained space (Section 2.4), and correlation analysis to reveal the variations in the proportion of land categories within the groups of territories (Section 2.5). In total, the study algorithm followed five stages (Table 1), which are further addressed in Section 2.1, Section 2.2, Section 2.3, Section 2.4 and Section 2.5 of the paper.

2.1. Stage 1: Land Categories

As the structural features of land classification frameworks largely depend on the purpose of classification [50], various country specific approaches exist to categorize agriculture and other types of land. In Russia, Shagaida [51], Nosov [52], and Macht et al. [53] have contributed to the identification of various categories of agricultural lands. The majority of the studies, however, have paid inadequate attention to revealing variations in land fund compositions due to the specific needs for farming, residential construction, or industrial and infrastructure development in particular locations. For instance, Zhang et al. [3] applied an ecological-living-production classification system, to demonstrate the distribution of agricultural land across arable land, pastures, timberland, aquaculture land, and orchards, but they did not reveal the variations in the spatial concentration of particular land categories. Loshakov [54] developed an approach for the categorization of agricultural lands based on the productive qualities of soils but did not consider mismatches between agro-climatic zoning and land registers.
While the adjustments to land classification systems may be useful in achieving some specific technical, geographical, environmental, or economic goals, there are situations in which various existing approaches should be merged [55]. Many of the systems have a limitation in their ability to demonstrate the interrelationships between the categories of land cadasters for agricultural production. In general, classification concepts do not correctly emphasize per-category changes in the composition of a land fund. This is also one of the inherent vices of state statistics reporting on land fund structures in many countries. Notably, the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation (Rosstat) generalizes land into three broad categories (namely, agricultural, woodlands, and water reserve lands) [56]. Separate forms also report urban lands and lands for industrial, transportation, and communication infrastructure purposes; however, these forms exist at a national scale, not a regional scale. More detailed classification for five categories of agricultural land (croplands, hayfields, rangelands, perennial plantings, and fallows) is available in agricultural census report forms [57]. However, since the agricultural census is conducted decennially, intercategory variations cannot be effectively tracked on an annual basis.
One of the possible solutions to this discontinuity problem is to supplement census data with operative land cadaster information [58]. In Russia, the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre, and Cartography (Rosreestr) continually monitors land fund compositions per territories across seven categories of land, including agricultural land, residential land, industrial land, specially protected territories, woodlands, water fund lands, and reserve lands [59]. Among several classification schemes used by Rosreestr, one breaks agricultural lands into five categories, similar to Rosstat’s decennial census, but instead on an annual basis. The usage of this data may allow the creation of a better time-sensitive model to represent changes in the proportion of land categories within different regions.
In this study, simple classifications determining the allocation of land between agriculture, urban, and nature were merged with more comprehensive ones, in which cadaster synergies could be detailed for a wider range of agricultural, industrial, urban and built-up, forest, and water reserve lands. The array included the categories of urban and infrastructure lands (obtained from separate sections of Rosstat’s reports), as well as wetlands, disturbed lands, and barren lands (all reported by Rosreestr’s alternative classification of utilized lands). In total, the authors’ model merged thirteen land categories, including five agricultural ( L 1 5 ) and eight non-agricultural ( L 6 13 ) categories (Table 2). As reported by Rosstat [56,57] and Rosreestr [59], the categories were mutually exclusive and exhaustive. That is, each location within the T j territory could be classified into one and only one L i category.

2.2. Stage 2: Composition of Land Funds

As the keynote idea is to reveal the variations in the compositions of the land funds across diverse territories, a kind of assessment scale should be applied. There have been many attempts to find a reliable approach for the conversion of cadastral classification data into land-rating values. Land classification systems based on rankings have been in use since the 1980s when Wright et al. [60] and Cocks et al. [61] first applied simple additive linear models of factor weights to the evaluation of land utility for crop production. In the realm of building a relevant ranking framework, one of the major challenges is determining how to align categorization (public statistics) with functional scales. In agriculture, variations between the proportions of lands are hard to identify [62] and thus cannot be effectively linked with territory fragmentations of agricultural production [63]. The immediacy of the problem was convincingly demonstrated by Grčman et al. [64], who found the difference between land-rating values based on precise calculations and those based on official information (specifically, for agricultural land with lower production potential).
Another challenge is that the ranking systems are not comparable and, therefore, inapplicable across a variety of agricultural and non-agricultural lands [65,66], and even across croplands, fallows, and pastures [67,68]. There have been attempts to overcome this problem by finding an integral parameter that would allow the adjustment of agricultural- and non-agricultural-oriented ranking systems to be comparable. In terms of land fund compositions, one of the most promising foundations of ranking is the contribution of a land category to the total land acreage per territory [69] (Equation (1)). The applicability of this parameter for building category-based land assessment frameworks was successfully tested by Mazurkin and Mihailova [70], Buckett [71], Artamonova et al. [72], Stupen et al. [73], Shishkina et al. [74], and Yerseitova et al. [75].
A j L i = S j L i S j
where A j L i = share of land category L i in the land fund in territory T j ; S j L i = area of L i in territory T j ; S j = total land acreage of territory T j .
The shares of the L 1 13 land categories in the land funds were computed across T 1 82 territories (Appendix B, Table A9, Table A10, Table A11, Table A12, Table A13, Table A14, Table A15 and Table A16).

2.3. Stage 3: Agricultural Land Activity

Further, the A j L i values are ranked across the arrays of L i land categories and T j territories to calculate a parameter of land activity. Agricultural land activity is a degree of orientation of a land fund composition toward an agricultural type of land use. It is an indicator of how a proportion of L 1 5 to L 6 13 serves the purpose of agricultural production in particular geographic and economic conditions at a regional scale. Land activity is a score of a T j territory, obtained based on the proportions of various land categories within a land fund. Higher contributions of L 1 5 to total acreage result in higher agricultural land activity scores. The activity-rank correspondence is straightforward, where the higher is A j L i value, the higher is R j i score. A high rank demonstrates an orientation of land fund composition towards agricultural specialization. Since the prevalence of non-agricultural lands is considered as a spatial constraint for the allocation of agricultural land uses, higher proportions of L 6 13 within a land fund result in lower agricultural land activity scores. For these land categories, the activity-rank relationship is inverse, where the higher is A j L i value, the lower is the R j i score. For j territories included in the study, the R interval was [0; j − 1]. In our model, as A j L 1 5 tended to 1, R tended to (j − 1), while as A j L 6 13 tended to 1, R tended to 0.
Then, we assessed the significance of derived estimates. R j i scores were used to identify the quartiles of A j L i (Figure 1). The [ R j m i n ; R j m a x ] interval was divided into the quartiles by finding the n multiplier, where n = R j m a x R j m i n 4 .
The quartile-based approach was used by Mazurkin [69] for the ranking of territories based on absolute values of land activity parameters. It also agrees with Kotykova et al. [76] and Zhildikbaeva et al. [77], who compared the deviations of land category estimates from their highest level on a territory-by-territory basis. In this study, such a method for the classification of rankings allowed consideration of the information in the percentage areas measured for each L i in each T j .

2.4. Stage 4: Revealing Structural Variations of Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Land Categories

Since the early years of Russia’s land reform, structural variations in the compositions of land funds have progressed in response to socioeconomic and anthropogenic processes. To identify these variations between various land categories across four types of territories, this study employed factor analysis. It enables the transformation of land fund data into meaningful information [43,78] and revelation of variations in the structure of the use of territory land funds. According to Alcamo et al. [79] and Lavalle et al. [80], the integration of proximate and underlying factors may capture both the spatial distribution and the variety of land categories claimed for different land-based activities. The employment of factor analysis tools at a regional scale by Bakker et al. [81], Van Doorn and Bakker [44], and Hatna and Bakker [82] demonstrates the appropriateness of the method for cross-territory comparisons.
Among numerous factor analysis approaches, correlation analysis is one of the most suitable approaches to reveal variations in land fund compositions [83,84]. Since the A j L i data are compositional, i.e., they add up to a constant value of 1 or 100% of a land fund, they need a special treatment prior to correlation analysis [85]. Aitchison [86] named land fund compositions among the typical datasets associated with challenging problems in compositional data analysis. In a compositional vector that consists of several parts summing up to a constant, the relevant information is contained only in the ratios between these parts [87] (Equation (2)).
x = x 1 , , x D t ,   x i > 0 ,   i = 1 , , D ,   i = 1 D x i = k
where D = number of compositions, and k = a positive constant value, i.e., the sum of D compositions.
If correlation analysis is applied directly to the A j L i data, this can give misleading results [88] and form undesirable properties, like scale dependence [89]. The best way to analyze data with constant sum constraints is by first transforming them into an unconstrained space [88], where standard data analysis tools can then be employed [90]. Several log-ratio transformations have been introduced by Aitchison [89,91], Pawlowsky-Glahn et al. [87,90], Filzmoser and Hron [85], Long and Wang [92], and Van den Boogaart and Tolosana-Delgado [93]. Commonly used methods include using the additive log-ratio (alr), isometric log-ratio (ilr), and centered log-ratio (clr). Additive log-ratio transformation is based on log-ratios to a single reference variable. It is the simplest way to transform compositional data. However, it does not preserve distances between variables; i.e., it is not isometric [85]. Isometric log-ratio transformation is built on the choice of an orthonormal basis and thus solves the isometry problem. However, according to Egozcue et al. [94] and Egozcue and Pawlowsky-Glahn [95], base compositional parts are only related to isometric log-ratio transformed variables through non-linear functions. In our case, this meant that the computed correlations between the proportions of land categories could not be interpreted in the sense of the A j L i data.
For this study, we employed centered log-ratio transformation (Equation (3)). Distinct from the additive log-ratio method, the centered log-ratio method is based on the geometric mean of all variables. It allows for the selection of a ratio variable to be avoided [85]. In contrast with the isometric log-ratio method, the centered log-ratio method simplifies the interpretation of the transformed variables because one could think of them in terms of the original variables [85,96].
y = y 1 , , y D = ln x 1 i = 1 D x i D , , ln x D i = 1 D x i D
where x = A j L i share of land category L i in the land fund in territory T j ; y = transformed A j L i compositions A T R j L i ; D = number of compositions, i.e., L i land categories.
The A j L i compositions were transformed into A T R j L i data across all T j territories using CoDaPack. This open-access software is one of the easiest-to-use applications that is commonly employed for compositional data transformation (for instance, see Thió-Henestrosa and Martín-Fernández [97], Egozcue and Pawlowsky-Glahn [98], and Muriithi [99]). The centered log-ratio-transformed data that were obtained were standard multivariate data that enabled us to use correlation analysis. Correlation matrices were built separately for the four groups of territories earlier ranked by the type of agricultural land activity. Correlation analysis was carried out here using the Excel Data Analysis ToolPak.

2.5. Stage 5: Significance of Correlations

When conducting correlation analysis for land systems, most scholars have faced a challenge similar to what we outlined earlier concerning ranking scales, namely, determining the significance of synergies between variables. Among various methods, the coefficient of correlation variance seems to be the most appropriate for dealing with interdependent multitudes of land categories [69,70] (Equation (4)).
C c v = A T R j L i A T R m a x × N L × N T
where C c v = coefficient of correlation variance; A T R j L i = sum of transformed A j L i values of L i land categories in T j territories in the group; A T R m a x = the highest value of A T R j L i in the group; N L = number of land categories in the array; N T = number of territories in the array.
The C c v value was applied across four correlation matrices (types of land activity) to remove weak interdependencies and reveal strong synergies between the proportions of the L 1 5 and L 6 13 land categories in a land fund.

2.6. Territories and Data

Russia is a federation comprised of 85 administrative entities, or territories, as defined in the Section 1. Our study included 82 of them (mapped in Figure 2 and Figure 3). The three municipal areas of Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and Sevastopol were excluded from the array as they are areas in which the proportion of agricultural land in the territory land fund is of negligible importance. For each territory, land cadaster data were derived from the annual reports from Rosreestr [59] and Rosstat [56,57] during 2010–2018. In Russia, these data are reported across thirteen land categories in thousand hectares. Appendix A summarizes the data of the total acreages of the territories included in the study, along with the acreages of the thirteen land categories. The study was built on the mean acreages of L 1 13 land categories during 2010–2018 (Appendix A, Table A1, Table A2, Table A3, Table A4, Table A5, Table A6, Table A7 and Table A8). The proportions of the L 1 13 land categories in regional land funds across T 1 82 territories are provided as percentages in Appendix B, Table A9, Table A10, Table A11, Table A12, Table A13, Table A14, Table A15 and Table A16. The variations in the proportions are provided as differences between 2010 and 2018 in Appendix B, Table A9, Table A10, Table A11, Table A12, Table A13, Table A14, Table A15 and Table A16. The consideration of the Republic of Crimea as a part of the array was determined by the current position of the territory as being de-facto controlled by Russia. In no way, these results reflect the authors’ attitude to the international status of the area. For the Republic of Crimea, we used the mean data of the land acreage and land categories’ proportions from 2015–2018.

3. Results

3.1. Composition of Land Funds

The analysis of land cadaster data across Russia’s T j territories (Appendix B, Table A9, Table A10, Table A11, Table A12, Table A13, Table A14, Table A15 and Table A16) allowed the discovery of a distinct regularity in the spatial distribution of agricultural lands. In southern and central parts of the country (green belt between 45° and 55° north latitude), croplands prevailed in the composition of the land funds (Figure 2). In the mountainous areas of North Caucasus, the blue belt comprised the territories where rangelands and other agricultural lands predominated. In most of the northern and eastern regions, the land funds were comprised of non-agricultural lands with a minor proportion of cropland.

3.2. Agricultural Land Activity

The ranking of Russia’s territories on a parameter of agricultural land activity resulted in higher scores for the southern and central parts of the country than for Siberia and the Far East (Appendix C, Table A17, Table A18, Table A19, Table A20, Table A21, Table A22, Table A23 and Table A24). Concurrently, some less apparent findings were yielded (Appendix D, Table A25).
First, in the Southern Federal District, an agricultural granary for the country, the land fund composition was less agriculture-oriented compared to the Central and Volga districts and some territories of Siberia. Specifically, for Krasnodar and Rostov, two green belt territories with a considerable proportion of cropland in the structure of the land fund, the ∑ R j i ¯ values were well below the district average. In some territories in the south and center, high ranks of cropland and rangeland were negated by low ranks for barren lands, water reserve lands, residential, industrial, and infrastructure lands.
Second, in the Siberian Federal District, the ∑ R j i ¯ values nearly reached those values of the central and southern districts due to the high scores of hayfields in Omsk and Novosibirsk. The green belt by Altay was rated high for the proportion of cropland and other agricultural lands in the composition of the land fund.
Third, the yellow and red belts in the Far East feature the least agriculture-oriented macroregion in Russia. In Chukotka, Magadan, and Sakhalin, where woodlands and wetlands dominate the composition of the land fund, the agricultural land categories were ranked the lowest among the 82 territories examined here. However, in Primorye, Khabarovsk, Amur, and Jewish Autonomous Oblast, fallows, hayfields, and rangelands received high scores.
Following the obtained ranks, four R j intervals were identified, each of which included T j territories according to the degrees of agricultural land activity. The grouping reproduced the earlier revealed belt-like distribution of agricultural land, but with a modified configuration instead (Figure 3).
Generally, while the green belt shrank and shifted eastward, the blue one expanded and spread north of the 55° latitude mark. In some of the previously yellow belt territories of the Northwestern, Central, and Volga districts, perennial plantings and hayfields were ranked high enough to include those regions as type II regions. In Siberia, the green belt included Omsk and Novosibirsk due to the high rank of hayfields and the low rank of disturbed and barren lands. The blue belt stretched from Ural (Tyumen and Chelyabinsk) to Siberia (Tomsk, Khakasia, Tyva, and the Altay Republic) and farther to the Far East (Zabaikalsk and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast). In the south, the substantial activity of residential, industrial, transportation, communication, and disturbed lands downgraded Krasnodar to type III and Rostov and Crimea to type II. Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachaevo-Cherkessia, and Dagestan, on the contrary, broke forth to the green belt due to high scores of perennial plantings and rangeland and low activity of wetlands, disturbed lands, and water reserve lands.

3.3. Correlation Analysis

In type I territories, the variations in the compositions of agricultural lands correlated with the changes in the acreage of non-agricultural land for infrastructure, primarily transportation and communication (the strongest correlation with cropland, perennial plantings, and hayfields) (Table 3). Strong correlations were also revealed between the proportions of croplands and fallows, on one side, and those of woodland and barren land on the other. The share of rangeland in the land fund was strongly correlated with that of barren land.
Similar to type I, in the type II group, a strong correlation was found between the shares of cropland and perennial plantings and those of lands for transportation and communication infrastructure (Table 4). Besides, since the blue belt predominantly was comprised of densely populated territories, there was a correlation between the shares of croplands and residential lands. In many type II territories, the contribution of woodlands and other forest ranges to the structure of the land fund was essential. This fact might explain the high correlation between the composition of agricultural lands and woodlands. In the south, where the climate and soil favor the development of horticulture and viniculture (i.e., in Crimea, Adygeya, and Rostov), C c v emphasized a strong correlation between the proportions of perennial plantings and croplands within the agricultural land categories.
The yellow belt included three types of territories, namely, northern territories, Siberia, and the Far East, occupying over half of the territory of Russia, but only representing 12.3% of its agricultural land, where the land use was primarily rangeland. The variations in the acreage of rangelands strongly correlated with those of woodlands, other forest ranges, and wetlands (Table 5). The northern locus included the territories of Russia’s northwest, the Ural region, and central Russia (i.e., north of Moscow). In these highly industrialized but less populated territories, we revealed strong correlations between the proportions of croplands and barren land, as well as between those of perennial plantings and disturbed lands. In the south, the yellow belt included Krasnodar, the principal breadbasket territory of Russia. The share of cropland in the composition of Krasnodar’s land fund was 52.8%. Krasnodar is also one of Russia’s most densely populated regions and is the most popular resort area. The analysis demonstrated high correlations between the proportions of cropland and perennial plantings, on one side, and the shares of residential and industrial lands and lands under transportation and communication infrastructure on the other.
Type IV comprised the territories with the lowest activity of agricultural lands. The scarcity of agricultural lands represented intercategory variations in the composition of the agricultural land fund. The strongest correlations were identified between various categories of agricultural lands, specifically, cropland and hayfields, on one side, and perennial plantings and rangeland on the other (Table 6). The composition of the agricultural land fund was also affected by the proportions of barren land (in Chukotka and Nenets), woodlands (in Leningrad and Murmansk), wetlands (in Murmansk), and water reserve lands (in Yamal-Nenets).

4. Discussion

The results, as expected, demonstrated that the compositions of the land funds in Russia vary across territories. Echoing Bichler et al. [100], Chu [101], Smith et al. [102], and Bakker et al. [103], we found that the distribution of agricultural lands is largely affected by natural factors, while agricultural lands are spread unevenly across the country. At a regional scale, belt-type concentrations of cropland suggest an agriculture-focused land distribution pattern in the southern and central areas of Russia. This is consistent with the observations of Rounsevell et al. [104] and White and Engelen [105,106], who revealed that agricultural land use tends to become concentrated in locations, reflecting the influence of natural factors and neighboring land distribution patterns. Nevertheless, in particular territories, the proportion of agricultural lands in the land funds do not match the type of agricultural land activity.
Emulating earlier studies by Mazurkin and Mihailova [70], Shishkina et al. [74], Mazurkin [69], and Buckett [71], we revealed that the application of a land activity parameter could result in creating a picture of land distribution patterns that are different from that which might be expected from the knowledge of the proportions of individual land categories. Therefore, land distribution change maps are not sufficient to capture specific finer-scale variations in the compositions of land funds at a regional scale. In Russia, land tenure and demand for land have been the principal economic proxies to map agricultural land distribution. According to Shagaida [107], the demand for agricultural land varies significantly across Russia’s territories, depending on the degree of land consolidation. In the course of land reform, the previously dominant state farms have transformed the organizational form of their land use but still have persisted as the backbone of the agricultural sector [34,108]. In the embryonic land market in the 1990–2000s, the establishment of new land tenure patterns had not involved immediate changes in the distribution of land from big ex-Soviet agricultural enterprises to individual owners [107]. Since land certificates do not specify land plots, most of the shareowners have not withdrawn their land property from joint use by former collective farms. Over 70% of land in Russia is still used by large enterprises for rent, 25% is contributed to the capital of large enterprises, and only 4% is retained by private owners [109]. In the breadbasket southern and central European territories of Russia, large agricultural holding companies have aggregated even more agricultural land property when compared to the Soviet period [110].
To a large extent, the existing demand-based distribution matches the land activity map (Figure 3), as the highest demand for land is identified in the central parts of the country close to Moscow. This demand primarily exists due to non-agricultural businesses. For type I and II territories, this correlates well with the finding of strong links between the proportions of agricultural land categories, on one side, and those of residential, industrial, and infrastructure lands on the other. In type III southern locus (Krasnodar), Lerman and Shagaida [20] reported high demand for land among corporate farms. In that classification, type I and II territories are considered as less developed areas in terms of agricultural production (sometimes even as “agriculturally depressed regions” ([20] p. 20)), where corporate farms tend to reduce their holdings and abandon land plots. Our results, on the contrary, demonstrated that in the south of European Russia, where the concentration of croplands is the highest, agricultural land activity is lower compared to many other territories of the country.
In the territories where a high proportion of croplands coexist with low agricultural land activity, many of the variations in the composition of a land fund could be explained by socio-economic factors. Van de Steeg et al. [111] and Gärtner et al. [112] confirmed that the distribution of agricultural land strongly correlates with the level of rural development, proximity to economic and market centers, urbanization, and the demand for agricultural land from non-agricultural industries. Our study revealed correlations between the proportions of agricultural and urban lands across type I–III territories, which could represent losing agricultural land due to urban development. In type II territories, the compositions of agricultural land funds are more affected by urban development than the compositions of type I and III. These results supported the findings of Daniels [113], Su et al. [114], Yeh and Huang [115], and Dredge [116], i.e., the proximity to urban development can be a powerful predictor of changes in agricultural land use. Many scholars, including Parsipour et al. [117], Li et al. [118], and Al-Kofahi et al. [119], among others, agree that the accelerating urbanization has been causing increasingly harmful effects on agricultural lands. In the case of Russia, we did not reveal the acceleration of agriculture land loss in urbanized type I–III territories. What was revealed, however, was the strengthening of the correlation between the variations in the compositions of agricultural land funds and residential, industrial, and infrastructure lands. As Zubair et al. [120] and Lucero and Tarlock [121] forecasted, such stronger associations would continue to put increasing pressure on agricultural lands and result in more fragmented agricultural land use in the future.
Along with urbanization, an orientation of a land fund composition towards agricultural production is determined by the population density [111,122]. In urbanized type I and II territories, agricultural land use is affected by the variations in the acreage of residential lands. In agriculture-oriented Krasnodar, Rostov, and Stavropol, the changes in agricultural land fund compositions are mainly linked with those of lands for transportation and communication. This result was consistent with what Ramadani and Bytyqi [123], Li et al. [118], and Al-Kofahi et al. [119] reported when assessing the effects of more significant concentrations of the population on the lower proportions of agricultural lands in a land fund.
Reversely, Meyfroidt et al. [124] and Nguyen et al. [125] revealed that in the industrialized areas in Russia, where the density of population is lower, the concentration of abandoned lands is higher. There is an array of studies that have reported a link between industrial growth, changes in agricultural land distribution, and the degradation of farming opportunities internationally. Explicitly, Oyebanji et al. [126] confirmed the existence of a positive long-term relationship between industrialization and land loss in Nigeria. Deng and Li [127] revealed that the soil sealing effect has resulted from industrial and infrastructure construction in China, while Müller and Sikor [128], Milanova et al. [33], and Müller et al. [129] linked changes in agricultural land distribution and agricultural abandonment in EU countries with unfavorable environmental conditions due to increasing industrialization. The expansion of urban and industrial infrastructure not only triggers agriculture-to-urban and agriculture-to-industry land transfers but also leads to the overexploitation and degradation of remaining agricultural lands [127]. Many areas in Russia may soon face a reduction in farming opportunities due to various kinds of environmental pollution. Many experts tend to explain the unprecedented increase of barren land in Russia (by four million ha during the past two decades) by the intensive exploitation of mineral resources and industrial construction [39,130]. Kashtanov [131] and Dobrovolski [132] associated the expansion of industrial infrastructure with long-term and irreversible losses of cropland in Russia. In support of the earlier findings of Sorokin et al. [130] and Solgerel et al. [133] concerning the close relationships between industrial development and arable acreage, strong correlations between the proportions of croplands, perennial plantings, and industrial lands are revealed in both urbanized type I and II territories and sparsely populated yellow belt areas.
Distinct from urbanization, industrialization may affect agricultural land use in remote areas. According to Sorokin et al. [130], most of the abandoned lands are located in the north of Russia. This agrees well with our finding of strong correlations between the variations in the acreage of croplands, disturbed lands, and barren lands in the north locus of the yellow belt. Prishchepov et al. [39] and MacDonald et al. [134] also reported abandoned agricultural land concentrated in remote and isolated industrialized areas in northern Russia. Nakvasina et al. [135] claimed that the proximity to urban areas might be used as a critical criterion to transfer disturbed and barren lands back into agricultural use. However, we did not identify strong correlations between the variations in agricultural land fund compositions and residential lands for type III territories.
In diverse land activity patterns across the Russian territories, changes in the compositions of agricultural and non-agricultural land funds depend on the degree of industrial development. As mentioned by Postek et al. [136] and Prishchepov et al. [39], agricultural land loss due to increasing industrialization causes the fragmentation of arable lands as smaller locations with lower productivity. However, according to Popov [137], fragmentation is not a problem in agriculture-oriented areas due to the excessive lease of agricultural land. The issue is particularly topical in territories where arable land is scarce, however [138,139]. Nefedova [140] reported that in northern and eastern parts of Russia, agricultural land distribution is extremely fragmented. Our results demonstrated that in the Russian North and Far East, low activity of cropland is coupled with the prevalence of hayfields in the composition of the agricultural land funds there. High intragroup correlations between the proportions of cropland, rangeland, hayfields, and perennial plantings in type IV territories confirm the observations of King and Burton [141], Tan et al. [142], and Dhakal and Khanal [143], i.e., the fragmentation results in the competition between the categories of agricultural lands.
We performed our analysis in the short-term, but it is commonly known that land transformations (particularly, for croplands and annual crops) can be rapid, whereas transformations are slower in grassland-livestock oriented areas and permanent crop areas. Nationally, the ongoing loss of croplands may not have an immediate effect on the agricultural output of Russia. Still, this represents enormous environmental, economic, and social costs that will be hard to absorb in terms of a long-term perspective [144]. Griewald et al. [34] and Hunt et al. [145] outlined five principal drivers of long-term change in agricultural land use in Russia, environmental drivers being one of them. Our findings would allow one to expect that the evolution of land-use change will be affected by the pressure exerted on ecosystems by various land management types [34]. While some authors, including Diputra and Baek [146] and Mahcene et al. [147], reported little evidence that industrialization causes a significant increase in disturbed land acreage, our results suggested that lower activity of agricultural land categories is correlated with a higher activity of barren land, disturbed land, and industrial land. Weaker, but still significant, correlations between the proportions of agricultural and industrial land categories are revealed in type I and II territories here. In type IV territories, the contributions of croplands and perennial plantings to regional land funds are also linked with variations in the acreage of barren lands.
Among the drivers of land-use change, in the long run, there are also economic, social, technological, and policy-related factors. Bukvareva et al. [148] stated that current land-use policies in Russia pay little attention to the environmental costs associated with the re-use of abandoned lands. In light of the economic recession that Russia has been experiencing since the mid-2010s, farmers tend to reinforce the exploitation of all available lands to ensure sufficient income inflow. Often, this is done regardless of whether some lands are of high environmental value or are socioeconomically marginal [29]. In the short-term perspective, we did not reveal an increase in the acreage of croplands due to the use of other categories of agricultural land. To some extent, however, the correlations between the proportions of agricultural land categories are identified in type III territories. In these yellow belt areas, land reclamation programs will require substantial investments for clearing forested land, liming, and other works. In the short-term, high reclamation costs along with poor soil quality may reduce expected economic returns [149]; however, in the long run, the incentives for reclamation may grow as both the availability and quality of croplands in type I and II territories degrade. Such a perspective highlights the need for a deeper investigation of the variations in land fund compositions within a sustainable agricultural land management approach as a component of the broader economic and environmental system [150,151].

5. Conclusions

In recent decades, there has been increasing concern for ensuring the effective utilization of agricultural land due to the limited area of highly productive arable land and the growing demand for food and farming products internationally. In Russia, an orientation of state policy towards the growth of agricultural production, along with a low level of environmental awareness among farmers, has impeded the prospects of sustainable land management as an integral aspect of land use planning. The degradation of agricultural lands due to irrational use has posed environmental, economic, and social threats to the national development objectives of land management in many territories of the country. As most studies in Russia have focused on land changes between the categories of agricultural land, the influence of agriculture-to-urban and agriculture-to-industry transfers has been downplayed.
We conducted this work, intending to study such variations by revealing the interdependencies between the proportions of agricultural land categories, on the one hand, and urban, industrial, and other types of land on the other. First, land distribution was mapped based on a share of agricultural lands in a composition of a land fund and, second, by a “land activity rating” of Russia’s territories. Such a two-step approach to mapping allowed us to find that the proportions of agricultural lands in the composition of a land fund do not appropriately reveal the variations in the activities of agricultural land categories. In the territories, where agricultural lands dominated in the structure of a land fund, the agricultural land activity could be depressed by high proportions of non-agricultural lands. In urbanized and densely populated territories, the composition of the agricultural land fund was predominantly affected by the changes in the acreage of residential and industrial lands, as well as the lands for transportation and communication. In industrialized but underpopulated territories, the acreages of croplands and perennial plantings were strongly correlated with those of disturbed and barren lands. We also found that lower land activity tended to increase the variations within the agricultural land fund, which might indicate intercategory competition for more fertile, more productive, and better-located agricultural lands.
By establishing and testing the five-stage algorithm, we attempted to solve the scientific problem of low awareness in the causality between land-use processes and the composition of the land funds at regional scales. As distinguished from previous studies in the area, we investigated variations in the compositions of a land fund as interactions between the proportions of agricultural and non-agricultural lands. Practically, in territory-scale studies, such an approach might complement regionally adapted monitoring networks by targeting the mismatches between the cadaster-based mappings of agricultural land distributions and ranking-based activities of agricultural lands. Theoretically, such an algorithm allows one to capture the complex relationships of a variety of land categories and the resulting correlations between their proportions, therefore, being applicable for studying territorial land-use patterns, the simulation of agricultural land distribution systems, and the extrapolation of current trends into the future. Potentially, the algorithm is suitable for numerous locations. However, one of the limitations of the current study was that it used the Russian system of land statistics, which is built on thirteen land categories. Due to the different sources of land use data in different countries, an adjustment of the array of land categories to a national land reporting system is needed when implementing the method in a broader international context. Another limitation that could potentially challenge cross-country comparisons is the different sizes of territorial units. Russia’s case demonstrates that this problem may arise even within one country, where territories substantially differ in size. In an attempt to overcome a data discrepancy obstacle, we conversed cadastral classification data into land-rating values. To address the diversity of territories, we used an agricultural land activity parameter. This allowed us to adjust agricultural and non-agricultural-oriented ranking systems to make them comparable. Nevertheless, further research is needed to assess to what extent the approach would be able to appropriately picture variations in agricultural land activity patterns in the conditions of information asymmetries among countries.

Author Contributions

V.E. conceptualized the research framework and wrote the paper; T.G. analyzed the data; A.I. performed the data collection. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research and the APC were funded by the International and Regional Studies Fund of the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (grant number 19GBQY117).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Land acreage data of the Central Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A1. Land acreage data of the Central Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
TerritoryTotalL1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13
T12713.41645.2034.055.8399.3241.990.525.173.157.922.56.561.6
T23485.71174.9121.426.0205.5346.51183.6121.431.656.872.075.15.165.8
T32908.4605.746.620.0163.9159.11582.774.932.738.075.038.316.355.2
T45221.63046.241.952.8159.0776.8482.4149.564.0113.4121.140.61.9172.0
T52143.7565.99.89.0124.1112.51047.828.565.042.051.250.37.430.2
T62977.7956.136.121.0131.2232.21376.935.521.056.950.228.62.129.9
T76021.1655.031.25.6154.5148.34574.198.997.035.6101.786.85.726.7
T82999.71943.40.727.9101.6364.3249.368.138.356.472.532.111.034.1
T92404.71553.90.135.283.6281.0190.761.427.047.961.716.42.543.3
T104579.91130.36.7113.9183.0229.41998.335.290.1303.1158.850.634.798.8
T112465.21570.055.725.358.6341.5203.174.214.421.972.83.80.723.2
T123960.51535.226.124.6202.6722.41067.866.367.237.1105.155.46.644.1
T134977.91461.717.719.5215.1380.02167.6357.653.755.786.5115.318.029.5
T143446.22127.59.632.4166.0388.8371.797.942.855.160.843.91.748.0
T158420.11504.319.414.7379.1501.04742.2233.3248.196.9116.4465.220.379.2
T162567.91554.47.645.067.9298.0372.343.022.832.390.41.910.022.3
T173617.7793.30.314.6123.7196.11725.793.0386.859.465.8109.715.234.1
Note: T 1 = Belgorod; T 2 = Bryansk; T 3 = Vladimir; T 4 = Voronezh; T 5 = Ivanovo; T 6 = Kaluga; T 7 = Kostroma; T 8 = Kursk; T 9 = Lipetsk; T 10 = Moscow Oblast; T 11 = Orel; T 12 = Ryazan; T 13 = Smolensk; T 14 = Tambov; T 15 = Tver; T 16 = Tula; T 17 = Yaroslavl; L 1 13 = acreage of L i category, thousand hectares: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A2. Land acreage data of Northwestern Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A2. Land acreage data of Northwestern Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
TerritoryTotalL1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13
T1818,052.082.30.15.985.439.29850.222.14188.238.387.63543.613.495.7
T1941,677.4102.406.5239.669.631,093.5135.6641.548.2144.84073.115.85106.8
T2041,310.3302.51.89.1304.1109.822,948.6126.3811.593.3131.35823.35.510,643.2
T2114,452.7822.048.09.4343.9225.210,456.4330.9658.638.3178.31271.822.247.7
T221512.5392.6014.3153.6248.9295.118.8200.340.640.931.04.472.0
T238390.8434.1044.4194.6125.45015.7125.31266.858.7112.7830.023.0160.1
T2414,490.219.403.12.80.35383.6580.81191.537.131.35701.219.71519.4
T255450.1510.64.26.1173.1135.93580.9138.6174.825.569.8548.510.471.7
T265539.9744.3186.420.5279.0280.92249.0785.3375.334.871.9476.28.927.4
T2717,681.00.20019.85.71740.81439.21000.512.810.83381.82.510,066.9
Note: T 18 = Karelia; T 19 = Komi; T 20 = Arkhangelsk; T 21 = Vologda; T 22 = Kaliningrad; T 23 = Leningrad; T 24 = Murmansk; T 25 = Novgorod; T 26 = Pskov; T 27 = Nenets; L 1 13 = acreage of L i category, thousand hectares: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A3. Land acreage data of the Southern Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A3. Land acreage data of the Southern Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
TerritoryTotalL1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13
T28779.2259.60.39.34.985.7288.87.753.522.118.84.00.324.2
T297473.1836.910.62.5103.25363.632.642.3175.632.265.1123.54.0681.0
T302608.11271.610.675.81.9433.6266.235.0211.7118.843.45.21.5132.8
T317548.53985.40.2125.263.1531.11541.3158.7385.6202.9196.0179.65.4174.0
T324902.4352.06.79.8404.82482.7104.219.5684.628.257.4114.70.5637.3
T3311,287.75854.04.742.8206.92652.8591.0131.3489.8165.9117.635.23.0992.7
T3410,096.75907.3058.288.42459.2293.0281.9346.1150.8220.555.07.1229.2
Note: T 28 = Adygeya; T 29 = Kalmykia; T 30 = Crimea; T 31 = Krasnodar; T 32 = Astrakhan; T 33 = Volgograd; T 34 = Rostov; L 1 13 = acreage of L i category, thousand hectares: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A4. Land acreage data of the North Caucasian Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A4. Land acreage data of the North Caucasian Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
TerritoryTotalL1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13
T355027.0520.14.872.4162.32588.6585.057.2176.934.563.020.62.5739.1
T36362.8111.004.79.796.6101.02.31.74.55.50.10.125.6
T371247.0300.7030.156.3309.3196.813.315.517.626.81.21.0278.4
T381427.7161.13.84.9140.9353.2431.29.722.513.914.11.30.8270.3
T39798.7202.40.45.123.2169.7205.99.711.519.112.00.50.3138.9
T401564.7332.20.211.056.8575.2336.027.628.643.421.52.71.4128.1
T416616.03998.614.044.2104.91625.8110.2144.1127.0107.5147.928.83.4159.6
Note: T 35 = Dagestan; T 36 = Ingushetia; T 37 = Kabardino-Balkaria; T 38 = Karachaevo-Cherkessia; T 39 = North Osetia-Alania; T 40 = Chechnya; T 41 = Stavropol; L 1 13 = acreage of L i category, thousand hectares: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A5. Land acreage data of the Volga Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A5. Land acreage data of the Volga Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
TerritoryTotalL1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13
T4214,294.73670.5043.61266.72346.15765.6227.9149.9132.1260.150.817.2364.2
T432337.5472.1128.07.956.6108.21340.618.985.026.239.533.11.420.0
T442612.81084.856.814.562.3437.2726.164.820.833.553.015.91.541.6
T456784.73420.60.741.1144.2932.81199.1129.4451.6141.7157.850.64.8110.3
T464206.11382.39.315.2112.5321.52019.1102.053.836.299.516.75.332.7
T471834.3806.36.219.948.3153.8603.617.548.135.360.15.10.529.6
T4816,023.61980.767.825.4388.8376.511,749.2145.5399.6124.1209.1369.88.5178.6
T4912,037.42480.351.815.0374.2399.17949.0150.6118.048.7148.4133.312.9156.1
T507662.42035.8180.033.8218.6642.53817.190.2162.7112.8143.4123.06.096.5
T5112,370.26115.3023.0698.03979.5618.6199.3111.3158.7184.715.313.0253.5
T524335.22263.6153.422.571.4528.1975.777.242.259.789.713.50.937.3
T535356.52937.5103.542.367.0847.5685.6104.5226.0103.0123.742.03.970.0
T5410,124.05981.1039.9122.22400.5614.2121.2357.9113.3149.419.22.4202.7
T553718.11655.7105.817.737.8390.31035.255.0228.534.885.610.71.459.6
Note: T 42 = Bashkortostan; T 43 = Mari El; T 44 = Mordovia; T 45 = Tatarstan; T 46 = Udmurtia; T 47 = Chuvashia; T 48 = Perm; T 49 = Kirov; T 50 = Nizhny Novgorod; T 51 = Orenburg; T 52 = Penza; T 53 = Samara; T 54 = Saratov; T 55 = Ulyanovsk; L 1 13 = acreage of L i category, thousand hectares: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A6. Land acreage data of the Ural Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A6. Land acreage data of the Ural Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
TerritoryTotalL1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13
T567148.82402.6459.312.4559.01024.81759.537.2318.749.186.3383.91.154.9
T5719,430.71470.499.532.4624.3351.113,631.8230.7262.3162.4228.52046.261.8229.3
T5816,012.21353.0364.711.7895.8756.77112.8144.9508.580.096.14609.14.674.3
T598852.93058.855.038.3591.11352.02707.375.2275.9137.8145.5192.731.8191.5
T6053,480.113.13.010.5343.8259.728,693.6156.53185.4141.6170.719,913.455.7533.1
T6176,925.00.900.2165.357.318,763.54380.313,319.9120.5170.714,798.8103.725,043.9
Note: T 56 = Kurgan; T 57 = Sverdlovsk; T 58 = Tyumen; T 59 = Chelyabinsk; T 60 = Khanty-Mansi; T 61 = Yamal-Nenets; L 1 13 = acreage of L i category, thousand hectares: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A7. Land acreage data of the Siberian Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A7. Land acreage data of the Siberian Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
TerritoryTotalL1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13
T629290.3143.52.21.7120.91522.84357.7190.086.310.923.173.30.42757.5
T6335,133.4829.661.68.2389.61856.823,660.6220.72409.073.286.3487.37.85042.7
T6416,860.4191.3147.90.976.53416.68667.2450.1228.121.729.31026.45.52598.9
T656156.9685.040.07.3160.41022.53288.923.1112.230.039.332.112.7703.4
T6616,799.66654.4298.927.81235.62789.74029.3205.8442.6131.9195.5374.73.6409.8
T6743,189.2484.1951.55.71722.64481.730,782.9497.5318.7152.1114.31076.924.22577.0
T68236,679.73120.1136.437.4781.81334.1120,936.83185.09221.5175.3182.522,690.217.374,861.3
T6977,484.61734.53.330.0390.1640.866,080.5235.12639.0165.1260.91709.426.33569.6
T709572.51539.40.127.1471.3582.56074.7163.291.7107.5174.590.583.4166.6
T7117,775.63772.181.033.62197.92315.04799.2280.3766.5102.4166.83059.61.7199.5
T7214,114.04156.6175.926.51096.21265.54667.789.4289.893.9150.72026.85.070.0
T7331,439.1675.91.39.4479.9204.519,939.988.1608.342.587.99173.97.1120.4
Note: T 62 = Altay Republic; T 63 = Buryatia; T 64 = Tyva; T 65 = Khakasia; T 66 = Altay; T 67 = Zabaikalsk; T 68 = Krasnoyarsk; T 69 = Irkutsk; T 70 = Kemerovo; T 71 = Novosibirsk; T 72 = Omsk; T 73 = Tomsk; L 1 13 = acreage of L i category, thousand hectares: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A8. Land acreage data of the Far Eastern Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A8. Land acreage data of the Far Eastern Federal District in thousand hectares. Mean values for 2010–2018.
TerritoryTotalL1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13
T74308,352.3105.319.01.0719.5795.4164,862.01837.713,087.582.6129.119,783.630.9106,898.7
T7546,427.564.31.05.397.3307.726,810.0305.8844.516.317.02523.32.915,432.1
T7616,467.3755.060.825.9361.8445.913,023.3407.6424.6111.1101.3466.916.8266.3
T7778,763.398.425.116.8401.9123.459,571.6231.81476.379.395.75605.96.111,031.0
T7836,190.81577.2244.011.9418.0482.526,136.8268.41151.054.1136.34794.112.7903.8
T7946,246.423.83.50.151.542.628,467.1340.8477.39.514.54815.477.411,922.9
T808710.151.207.663.660.06607.9347.5233.234.033.1642.010.5619.5
T813627.194.670.33.1119.2250.01783.2139.135.312.120.7914.51.5183.5
T8272,148.10.1008.20.313,015.13878.32442.74.522.22833.047.549,896.2
Note: T 74 = Sakha Yakutia; T 75 = Kamchatka; T 76 = Primorye; T 77 = Khabarovsk; T 78 = Amur; T 79 = Magadan; T 80 = Sakhalin; T 81 = Jewish AO; T 82 = Chukotka; L 1 13 = acreage of L i category, thousand hectares: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.

Appendix B

Table A9. Activity per land category in Russia, Central Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A9. Activity per land category in Russia, Central Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
ParameterT1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T12T13T14T15T16T17 A T 1 17 L i ¯
L10.6060.3370.2080.5830.2640.3210.1090.6480.6460.2550.6370.3880.2940.6170.1790.6050.2190.367
VL1−0.002+0.006-−0.003−0.003-−0.002−0.001-−0.008---−0.001-−0.001-
L200.0350.0160.0080.0050.0120.005000.0020.0230.0070.0040.0030.0020.00300.007
VL2-−0.007--+0.001----+0.002---−0.002---
L30.0130.0070.0070.0100.0040.0070.0010.0090.0150.0260.0100.0060.0040.0090.0020.0180.0040.008
VL3---------+0.001-------
L40.0210.0590.0560.0300.0580.0440.0260.0340.0350.0410.0240.0510.0430.0480.0450.0260.0340.040
VL4-+0.001-------−0.001---+0.006-−0.001−0
L50.1470.0990.0550.1490.0520.0780.0250.1210.1170.0520.1390.1820.0760.1130.0600.1160.0540.090
VL5---+0.002-----−0.003---+0.010-−0.001-
L60.0890.3400.5440.0920.4890.4620.7600.0830.0790.4510.0820.2700.4350.1080.5630.1450.4770.363
VL6---+0.006-----+0.001-+0.001--+0.002-+0.001
L70.0330.0350.0260.0290.0130.0120.0160.0230.0260.0080.0300.0170.0720.0280.0280.0170.0260.027
VL7---−0.006--+0.002--−0.001--−0.001+0.006−0.002--
L80.0090.0090.0110.0120.0300.0070.0160.0130.0110.0200.0060.0170.0110.0120.0290.0090.1070.020
VL8-----------------
L90.0270.0160.0130.0220.0200.0190.0060.0190.0200.0680.0090.0090.0110.0160.0120.0130.0160.019
VL9+0.001--+0.001+0.001--+0.001-+0.005-----+0.003+0.001
L100.0210.0210.0260.0230.0240.0170.0170.0240.0260.0360.0300.0270.0170.0180.0140.0350.0180.022
VL10+0.001----------------
L110.0080.0220.0130.0080.0230.0100.0140.0110.0070.0110.0020.0140.0230.0130.0650.0010.0300.019
VL11-----------------
L120.0020.0010.00600.0030.0010.0010.0040.0010.00800.0020.00400.0020.0040.0040.003
VL12-----------------
L130.0230.0190.0180.0330.0140.0100.0040.0110.0180.0220.0100.0110.0060.0130.0090.0090.0090.015
VL13-−0.005−0.006−0.007−0.003−0.001−0.002−0.004−0.004−0.003−0.005−0.005−0.002−0.004−0.001−0.003−0.004
Note: T 1 = Belgorod; T 2 = Bryansk; T 3 = Vladimir; T 4 = Voronezh; T 5 = Ivanovo; T 6 = Kaluga; T 7 = Kostroma; T 8 = Kursk; T 9 = Lipetsk; T 10 = Moscow Oblast; T 11 = Orel; T 12 = Ryazan; T 13 = Smolensk; T 14 = Tambov; T 15 = Tver; T 16 = Tula; T 17 = Yaroslavl; L 1 13 = portion of L i category in a composition of the land fund in T j territory, percentage: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; V L 1 13 = variability of L 1 13 , i.e., change in 2018 compared to 2010; “-” = no change or insignificant change. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A10. Activity per land category in Russia, Northwestern Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A10. Activity per land category in Russia, Northwestern Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
ParameterT18T19T20T21T22T23T24T25T26T27 A T 18 27 L i ¯
L10.0050.0020.0070.0570.2600.0520.0010.0940.13400.020
VL1---+0.004−0.005+0.002-−0.002+0.003-
L20000.0030000.0010.03400.001
VL2--------−0.003-
L30000.0010.0090.00500.0010.00400.001
VL3----+0.001−0.001----
L40.0050.0060.0070.0240.1020.02300.0320.0500.0010.011
VL4+0.001−0.001+0.001−0.003+0.004−0.002-+0.001+0.003-
L50.0020.0020.0030.0160.1650.01500.0250.05100.007
VL5---+0.002−0.005+0.001-+0.001−0.003-
L60.5460.7460.5560.7230.1950.5980.3720.6570.4060.0980.549
VL6+0.012−0.009+0.004−0.033+0.017−0.005+0.023−0.008+0.014+0.002
L70.0010.0030.0030.0230.0120.0150.0400.0250.1420.0810.022
VL7---+0.002--−0.001−0.001−0.011+0.002
L80.2320.0150.0200.0460.1320.1510.0820.0320.0680.0570.062
VL8+0.006−0.001-+0.002+0.004−0.003--+0.001+0.002
L90.0020.0010.0020.0030.0270.0070.0030.0050.0060.0010.003
VL9----−0.003---+0.001-
L100.0050.0030.0030.0120.0270.0130.0020.0130.0130.0010.005
VL10−0.001--+0.001−0.002---−0.001-
L110.1960.0980.1410.0880.0200.0990.3930.1010.0860.1910.152
VL11+0.004−0.003+0.010+0.003-−0.002+0.007−0.013−0.002+0.004
L120.001000.0020.0030.0030.0010.0020.00200.001
VL12----------
L130.0050.1230.2580.0030.0480.0190.1050.0130.0050.5690.165
VL13−0.004−0.023+0.011-+0.014+0.008+0.025+0.005−0.004+0.054
Note: T 18 = Karelia; T 19 = Komi; T 20 = Arkhangelsk; T 21 = Vologda; T 22 = Kaliningrad; T 23 = Leningrad; T 24 = Murmansk; T 25 = Novgorod; T 26 = Pskov; T 27 = Nenets; L 1 13 = portion of L i category in a composition of the land fund in T j territory, percentage: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; V L 1 13 = variability of L 1 13 , i.e., change in 2018 compared to 2010; “-” = no change or insignificant change. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A11. Activity per land category in Russia, Southern Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A11. Activity per land category in Russia, Southern Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
ParameterT28T29T30T31T32T33T34 A T 28 34 L i ¯
L10.3330.1120.4880.5280.0720.5190.5850.413
VL1−0.002−0.007-−0.001+0.003−0.007+0.004
L200.0010.00400.001000.001
VL2--+0.001----
L30.01200.0290.0170.0020.0040.0060.007
VL3+0.002-−0.003+0.002--+0.001
L40.0060.0140.0010.0080.0830.0180.0090.020
VL4-−0.001--+0.004+0.002−0.005
L50.1100.7180.1660.0700.5060.2350.2440.313
VL5−0.006+0.005−0.003−0.004−0.010+0.009+0.003
L60.3710.0040.1020.2040.0210.0520.0290.070
VL6+0.004-−0.002+0.005−0.001−0.002−0.003
L70.0100.0060.0130.0210.0040.0120.0280.015
VL7--+0.001−0.002--+0.002
L80.0690.0230.0810.0510.1400.0430.0340.052
VL8−0.006+0.001−0.003+0.002−0.005--
L90.0280.0040.0460.0270.0060.0150.0150.016
VL9+0.002-−0.001+0.001--+0.001
L100.0240.0090.0170.0260.0120.0100.0220.016
VL10−0.001-+0..002---−0.001
L110.0050.0170.0020.0240.0230.0030.0050.012
VL11-+0.001--+0.001--
L1200.0010.0010.001000.0010
VL12-------
L130.0310.0910.0510.0230.1300.0880.0230.064
VL13+0.013+0.014-+0.004+0.033+0.021+0.004
Note: T 28 = Adygeya; T 29 = Kalmykia; T 30 = Crimea; T 31 = Krasnodar; T 32 = Astrakhan; T 33 = Volgograd; T 34 = Rostov; L 1 13 = portion of L i category in a composition of the land fund in T j territory, percentage: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; V L 1 13 = variability of L 1 13 , i.e., change in 2018 compared to 2010; “-” = no change or insignificant change. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A12. Activity per land category in Russia, North Caucasian Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A12. Activity per land category in Russia, North Caucasian Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
ParameterT35T36T37T38T39T40T41 A T 35 41 L i ¯
L10.1030.3060.2410.1130.2530.2120.6040.330
VL1+0.002−0.003+0.006+0.002−0.003+0.004+0.011
L20.001000.0030.00100.0020.001
VL2-------
L30.0140.0130.0240.0030.0060.0070.0070.010
VL3−0.001+0.002−0.005--+0.001−0.001
L40.0320.0270.0450.0990.0290.0360.0160.033
VL4+0.003+0.004-+0.002+0.002−0.001+0.002
L50.5150.2660.2480.2470.2120.3680.2460.336
VL5−0.006−0.004−0.007+0.002+0.011+0.006−0.004
L60.1160.2780.1580.3020.2580.2150.0170.115
VL6−0.003+0.006+0.012−0.008−0.003−0.005+0.002
L70.0110.0060.0110.0070.0120.0180.0220.015
VL7--−0.001-+0.003−0.002+0.004
L80.0350.0050.0120.0160.0140.0180.0190.023
VL8+0.004-−0.001−0.002+0.003+0.001−0.003
L90.0070.0120.0140.0100.0240.0280.0160.014
VL9-+0.001+0.002-−0.001+0.003+0.001
L100.0130.0150.0210.0100.0150.0140.0220.017
VL10−0.002---+0.001−0.002−0.003
L110.00400.0010.0010.0010.0020.0040.003
VL11------−0.001
L12000.0010.00100.0010.0010.001
VL12-------
L130.1470.0710.2230.1890.1740.0820.0240.102
VL13+0.010+0.009+0.021+0.021+0.044+0.005+0.005
Note: T 35 = Dagestan; T 36 = Ingushetia; T 37 = Kabardino-Balkaria; T 38 = Karachaevo-Cherkessia; T 39 = North Osetia-Alania; T 40 = Chechnya; T 41 = Stavropol; L 1 13 = portion of L i category in a composition of the land fund in T j territory, percentage: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; V L 1 13 = variability of L 1 13 , i.e., change in 2018 compared to 2010; “-” = no change or insignificant change. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A13. Activity per land category in Russia, Volga Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A13. Activity per land category in Russia, Volga Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
ParameterT42T43T44T45T46T47T48T49T50T51T52T53T54T55 A T 42 55 L i ¯
L10.2570.2020.4150.5040.3290.4400.1240.2060.2660.4940.5220.5480.5910.4450.350
VL1+0.003+0.011+0.010+0.009+0.003+0.003+0.007+0.009+0.002+0.018+0.012+0.004+0.008+0.007
L200.0550.02200.0020.0030.0040.0040.02300.0350.01900.0280.008
VL2-−0.003−0.001---+0.001-−0.002-−0.004−0.002-−0.003
L30.0030.0030.0060.0060.0040.0110.0020.0010.0040.0020.0050.0080.0040.0050.003
VL3--+0.001+0.001-−0.002--+0.001--+0.001--
L40.0890.0240.0240.0210.0270.0260.0240.0310.0290.0560.0160.0130.0120.0100.035
VL4−0.004−0.003−0.005−0.002−0.003−0.002−0.004−0.003−0.005−0.004−0.001−0.002−0.001−0.002
L50.1640.0460.1670.1370.0760.0840.0230.0330.0840.3220.1220.1580.2370.1050.134
VL5+0.001+0.002+0.004+0.001+0.002+0.004−0.001−0.001+0.003+0.003+0.005+0.006+0.007−0.003
L60.4030.5740.2780.1770.4800.3290.7330.6600.4980.0500.2250.1280.0610.2780.377
VL6+0.003+0.005+0.003−0.002−0.012−0.007+0.013+0.017+0.012−0.001+0.004−0.003-+0.003
L70.0160.0080.0250.0190.0240.0100.0090.0130.0120.0160.0180.0200.0120.0150.015
VL7−0.002-−0.002+0.003+0.001−0.001--+0.001+0.002−0.002−0.001+0.002+0.002
L80.0100.0360.0080.0670.0130.0260.0250.0100.0210.0090.0100.0420.0350.0610.024
VL8+0.003+0.006+0.001+0.008−0.001−0.001+0.003+0.001−0.002--+0.003−0.001+0.003
L90.0090.0110.0130.0210.0090.0190.0080.0040.0150.0130.0140.0190.0110.0090.011
VL9--+0.001−0.002-+0.002--−0.002+0.004-−0.004--
L100.0180.0170.0200.0230.0240.0330.0130.0120.0190.0150.0210.0230.0150.0230.017
VL10+0.003+0.002+0.001+0.002+0.001−0.001−0.001−0.001−0.003+0.001+0.002+0.002+0.001+0.001
L110.0040.0140.0060.0070.0040.0030.0230.0110.0160.0010.0030.0080.0020.0030.009
VL11−0.001−0.001−0.002+0.001--−0.004−0.002−0.005--+0.001--
L120.0010.0010.0010.0010.00100.0010.0010.0010.00100.001000.001
VL12--------------
L130.0250.0090.0160.0160.0080.0160.0110.0130.0130.0200.0090.0130.0200.0160.016
VL13+0.002----−0.003−0.003−0.002-−0.002----
Note: T 42 = Bashkortostan; T 43 = Mari El; T 44 = Mordovia; T 45 = Tatarstan; T 46 = Udmurtia; T 47 = Chuvashia; T 48 = Perm; T 49 = Kirov; T 50 = Nizhny Novgorod; T 51 = Orenburg; T 52 = Penza; T 53 = Samara; T 54 = Saratov; T 55 = Ulyanovsk; L 1 13 = portion of L i category in a composition of the land fund in T j territory, percentage: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; V L 1 13 = variability of L 1 13 , i.e., change in 2018 compared to 2010; “-” = no change or insignificant change. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A14. Activity per land category in Russia, Ural Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A14. Activity per land category in Russia, Ural Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
ParameterT56T57T58T59T60T61 A T 56 61 L i ¯
L10.3360.0760.0840.346000.046
VL1+0.012−0.002−0.001+0.003--
L20.0640.0050.0230.006000.005
VL2+0.002-−0.002−0.001--
L30.0020.0020.0010.004000.001
VL3+0.001--+0.001--
L40.0780.0320.0560.0670.0060.0020.017
VL4+0.004−0.002+0.003+0.004+0.001-
L50.1430.0180.0470.1530.0050.0010.021
VL5−0.005−0.003−0.001−0.005+0.002-
L60.2460.7020.4440.3060.5370.2440.400
VL6−0.003−0.004+0.002−0.003−0.015−0.004
L70.0050.0120.0090.0080.0030.0570.028
VL7-+0.002+0.003+0.001-+0.005
L80.0450.0130.0320.0310.0600.1730.098
VL8−0.013−0.011−0.002−0.003−0.004−0.003
L90.0070.0080.0050.0160.0030.0020.004
VL9+0.001+0.002-+0.003--
L100.0120.0120.0060.0160.0030.0020.005
VL10+0.002+0.003+0.002+0.004+0.001-
L110.0540.1050.2880.0220.3720.1920.231
VL11+0.001−0.002−0.004−0.002−0.003−0.004
L1200.00300.0040.0010.0010.001
VL12-+0.001-+0.002--
L130.0080.0120.0050.0220.0100.3260.144
VL13+0.004+0.002-+0.004+0.002+0.004
Note: T 56 = Kurgan; T 57 = Sverdlovsk; T 58 = Tyumen; T 59 = Chelyabinsk; T 60 = Khanty-Mansi; T 61 = Yamal-Nenets; L 1 13 = portion of L i category in a composition of the land fund in T j territory, percentage: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; V L 1 13 = variability of L 1 13 , i.e., change in 2018 compared to 2010; “-” = no change or insignificant change. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A15. Activity per land category in Russia, Siberian Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A15. Activity per land category in Russia, Siberian Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
ParameterT62T63T64T65T66T67T68T69T70T71T72T73 A T 62 73 L i ¯
L10.0150.0240.0110.1110.3960.0110.0130.0220.1610.2120.2950.0210.047
VL1+0.002+0.001−0.001+0.003+0.004−0.003−0.004+0.003−0.005−0.004+0.006+0.001
L200.0020.0090.0060.0180.0220.001000.0050.01200.004
VL2--+0.001−0.002−0.002+0.001---+0.001−0.003-
L30000.0010.0020000.0030.0020.00200
VL3--------+0.001---
L40.0130.0110.0050.0260.0740.0400.0030.0050.0490.1240.0780.0150.018
VL4−0.002−0.001−0.001−0.003−0.004−0.002--−0.004−0.006−0.001-
L50.1640.0530.2030.1660.1660.1040.0060.0080.0610.1300.0900.0070.042
VL5+0.002+0.001+0.004+0.003+0.001+0.003+0.001+0.001−0.001+0.003+0.005+0.001
L60.4690.6730.5140.5340.2400.7130.5110.8530.6350.2700.3310.6340.578
VL6−0.002−0.005−0.003−0.006−0.003−0.012−0.014−0.018−0.013−0.003−0.005−0.008
L70.0200.0060.0270.0040.0120.0120.0130.0030.0170.0160.0060.0030.011
VL7−0.003−0.001−0.003-−0.002−0.001−0.002-−0.004−0.003--
L80.0090.0690.0140.0180.0260.0070.0390.0340.0100.0430.0210.0190.033
VL8-−0.001--−0.001-+0.002+0.001-−0.002+0.001+0.003
L90.0010.0020.0010.0050.0080.0040.0010.0020.0110.0060.0070.0010.002
VL9---+0.001+0.002+0.001--+0.002+0.001+0.001-
L100.0020.0020.0020.0060.0120.0030.0010.0030.0180.0090.0110.0030.003
VL10---+0.002+0.003--+0.001+0.001+0.001+0.002-
L110.0080.0140.0610.0050.0220.0250.0960.0220.0090.1720.1440.2920.081
VL11+0.001−0.001−0.002-−0.001−0.001−0.002−0.002−0.001+0.005+0.003−0.003
L120000.00200.001000.0090000
VL12---+0.001----+0.001---
L130.2970.1440.1540.1140.0240.0600.3160.0460.0170.0110.0050.0040.181
VL13+0.004+0.003+0.005+0.004-+0.004+0.005+0.002----
Note: T 62 = Altay Republic; T 63 = Buryatia; T 64 = Tyva; T 65 = Khakasia; T 66 = Altay; T 67 = Zabaikalsk; T 68 = Krasnoyarsk; T 69 = Irkutsk; T 70 = Kemerovo; T 71 = Novosibirsk; T 72 = Omsk; T 73 = Tomsk; L 1 13 = portion of L i category in a composition of the land fund in T j territory, percentage: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; V L 1 13 = variability of L 1 13 , i.e., change in 2018 compared to 2010; “-” = no change or insignificant change. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A16. Activity per land category in Russia, Far Eastern Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
Table A16. Activity per land category in Russia, Far Eastern Federal District. Mean values for 2010–2018.
ParameterT74T75T76T77T78T79T80T81T82 A T 74 82 L i ¯
L100.0010.0460.0010.0440.0010.0060.02600.004
VL1--+0.001-+0.001--−0.001-
L2000.00400.007000.01900.001
VL2--−0.001-−0.002--+0.002-
L3000.0020000.0010.00100
VL3---------
L40.0020.0020.0220.0050.0120.0010.0070.03300.004
VL4--+0.003+0.001+0.001-−0.001+0.002-
L50.0030.0070.0270.0020.0130.0010.0070.06900.004
VL5+0.001+0.001+0.002-+0.003-+0.001+0.004-
L60.5350.5770.7910.7560.7220.6160.7590.4920.1800.552
VL6−0.002−0.004−0.012−0.011−0.015−0.012−0.021−0.020−0.017
L70.0060.0070.0250.0030.0070.0070.0400.0380.0540.013
VL7−0.001−0.001−0.002--−0.001−0.003−0.004−0.011
L80.0420.0180.0260.0190.0320.0100.0270.0100.0340.033
VL8−0.002−0.001+0.001+0.001−0.003--+0.001−0.002
L9000.0070.0010.00100.0040.00300.001
VL9--+0.001---+0.001+0.001-
L10000.0060.0010.00400.0040.00600.001
VL10--+0.001-+0.001-+0.001+0.001-
L110.0640.0540.0280.0710.1320.1040.0740.2520.0390.069
VL11−0.002−0.002−0.001−0.005−0.004−0.006−0.001−0.009−0.003
L12000.001000.0020.00100.0010
VL12---------
L130.3470.3320.0160.1400.0250.2580.0710.0510.6920.320
VL13+0.019+0.024+0.003+0.005-+0.031+0.004+0.005+0.040
Note: T 74 = Sakha Yakutia; T 75 = Kamchatka; T 76 = Primorye; T 77 = Khabarovsk; T 78 = Amur; T 79 = Magadan; T 80 = Sakhalin; T 81 = Jewish AO; T 82 = Chukotka; L 1 13 = portion of L i category in a composition of the land fund in T j territory, percentage: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; V L 1 13 = variability of L 1 13 , i.e., change in 2018 compared to 2010; “-” = no change or insignificant change. Source: Authors’ development.

Appendix C

Table A17. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Central Federal District.
Table A17. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Central Federal District.
ParameterT1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T12T13T14T15T16T17 R 1 17 i ¯
R1775840724954308180467960517837764359
R20645349425144156265947363230331235
R3726360684862246575796957456633774759
R4317269487161405456593567606462435556
R5564332572939215049285467374733483142
R671432370313527274367352386720643347
R7981611434935241862103421214331723
R873746362337952596443805165613476557
R9417268111451151004037351931291621
R1020227141132319803529283912717
R11543947573252435159497545344824792848
R1213202578393152916317651124321
R13274039294359796245466561745169666754
Rj(113)507563477602451626483562573475705600512624438629384542
Note: T 1 = Belgorod; T 2 = Bryansk; T 3 = Vladimir; T 4 = Voronezh; T 5 = Ivanovo; T 6 = Kaluga; T 7 = Kostroma; T 8 = Kursk; T 9 = Lipetsk; T 10 = Moscow Oblast; T 11 = Orel; T 12 = Ryazan; T 13 = Smolensk; T 14 = Tambov; T 15 = Tver; T 16 = Tula; T 17 = Yaroslavl; R 1 13 = ranks of land activity per land categories: R 1 = cropland; R 2 = fallow; R 3 = perennial plantings; R 4 = hayfields; R 5 = rangeland; R 6 = woodlands; R 7 = forest range; R 8 = water reserve lands; R 9 = residential and industrial lands; R 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; R 11 = wetlands; R 12 = disturbed lands; R 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A18. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Northwestern Federal District.
Table A18. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Northwestern Federal District.
ParameterT18T19T20T21T22T23T24T25T26T27 R 18 27 i ¯
R11091224482372835120
R2108340002263013
R316713226753122543026
R410131736803415066431
R576918621712227217
R622521760174113396929
R78175762345395190136
R8054441742629101418
R9677465626456456507757
R10616467464417344437752
R115161018401501419714
R123554741910112115187333
R1371168802860185576141
Rj(113)386393424406454357249392489326388
Note: T 18 = Karelia; T 19 = Komi; T 20 = Arkhangelsk; T 21 = Vologda; T 22 = Kaliningrad; T 23 = Leningrad; T 24 = Murmansk; T 25 = Novgorod; T 26 = Pskov; T 27 = Nenets; R 1 13 = ranks of land activity per land categories: R 1 = cropland; R 2 = fallow; R 3 = perennial plantings; R 4 = hayfields; R 5 = rangeland; R 6 = woodlands; R 7 = forest range; R 8 = water reserve lands; R 9 = residential and industrial lands; R 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; R 11 = wetlands; R 12 = disturbed lands; R 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A19. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Southern Federal District.
Table A19. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Southern Federal District.
ParameterT28T29T30T31T32T33T34 R 28 34 i ¯
R15632657025687356
R218253842419018
R37118807637445554
R4142621877301927
R54681653679707264
R64281685979767869
R75671422673521348
R88407153182617
R92571553232123
R10105633650531832
R116341723133686153
R125347433775664052
R135321727525313344
Rj(113)492596588458633618509556
Note: T 28 = Adygeya; T 29 = Kalmykia; T 30 = Crimea; T 31 = Krasnodar; T 32 = Astrakhan; T 33 = Volgograd; T 34 = Rostov; R 1 13 = ranks of land activity per land categories: R 1 = cropland; R 2 = fallow; R 3 = perennial plantings; R 4 = hayfields; R 5 = rangeland; R 6 = woodlands; R 7 = forest range; R 8 = water reserve lands; R 9 = residential and industrial lands; R 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; R 11 = wetlands; R 12 = disturbed lands; R 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A20. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, North Caucasian Federal District.
Table A20. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, North Caucasian Federal District.
ParameterT35T36T37T38T39T40T41 R 35 41 i ¯
R12953443345427546
R223003120142817
R37473784158615963
R45244637947572853
R58076757469787375
R66649634753588059
R75467556547312549
R82581605355484653
R947302436731824
R104535195436401735
R116581777880746474
R125064334556324947
R13142410127205020
Rj(113)624677601648580558612614
Note: T 35 = Dagestan; T 36 = Ingushetia; T 37 = Kabardino-Balkaria; T 38 = Karachaevo-Cherkessia; T 39 = North Osetia-Alania; T 40 = Chechnya; T 41 = Stavropol; R 1 13 = ranks of land activity per land categories: R 1 = cropland; R 2 = fallow; R 3 = perennial plantings; R 4 = hayfields; R 5 = rangeland; R 6 = woodlands; R 7 = forest range; R 8 = water reserve lands; R 9 = residential and industrial lands; R 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; R 11 = wetlands; R 12 = disturbed lands; R 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A21. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Volga Federal District.
Table A21. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Volga Federal District.
ParameterT42T43T44T45T46T47T48T49T50T51T52T53T54T55 R 42 55 i ¯
R1473862675563343950666971746457
R2066571329353940610655506237
R3394054564270292750345264465147
R4783837324542394946702924232041
R5612566533840202441775159714548
R640195062324561229775765754844
R7376120292257584451363028484040
R8662377115837396841756921241244
R939332894112445822272513343830
R1026302313122424724372115381625
R11674460586671355042766956737060
R12254244382365482634277136675543
R13368156586444493757357054484753
Rj(113)561540634499527583482521548637678561621568569
Note: T 42 = Bashkortostan; T 43 = Mari El; T 44 = Mordovia; T 45 = Tatarstan; T 46 = Udmurtia; T 47 = Chuvashia; T 48 = Perm; T 49 = Kirov; T 50 = Nizhny Novgorod; T 51 = Orenburg; T 52 = Penza; T 53 = Samara; T 54 = Saratov; T 55 = Ulyanovsk; R 1 13 = ranks of land activity per land categories: R 1 = cropland; R 2 = fallow; R 3 = perennial plantings; R 4 = hayfields; R 5 = rangeland; R 6 = woodlands; R 7 = forest range; R 8 = water reserve lands; R 9 = residential and industrial lands; R 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; R 11 = wetlands; R 12 = disturbed lands; R 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A22. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Ural Federal District.
Table A22. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Ural Federal District.
ParameterT56T57T58T59T60T61 R 56 61 i ¯
R1572627593229
R2674360459037
R33231214910224
R47651687315648
R55519265810329
R654103746245538
R77250596079354
R81657313213125
R946425420636949
R1048495934667255
R1126123381614
R12729627282233
R137352683241645
Rj(113)694451575553362247480
Note: T 56 = Kurgan; T 57 = Sverdlovsk; T 58 = Tyumen; T 59 = Chelyabinsk; T 60 = Khanty-Mansi; T 61 = Yamal-Nenets; R 1 13 = ranks of land activity per land categories: R 1 = cropland; R 2 = fallow; R 3 = perennial plantings; R 4 = hayfields; R 5 = rangeland; R 6 = woodlands; R 7 = forest range; R 8 = water reserve lands; R 9 = residential and industrial lands; R 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; R 11 = wetlands; R 12 = disturbed lands; R 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A23. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Siberian Federal District.
Table A23. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Siberian Federal District.
ParameterT62T63T64T65T66T67T68T69T70T71T72T73 R 62 73 i ¯
R116191431611315183641521728
R216275046545821724152532
R39144263068193836351520
R4252194174588116581752741
R560306864634411153452421241
R6341127265692801451441526
R727691574465341773238688052
R87295649367822277119424544
R973687255436076663252497160
R1070717457516976652555526861
R1155462362363017375389232
R128169611470467960077586857
R13915131934175234263787733
Rj(113)547469486564654541407425444614656502526
Note: T 62 = Altay Republic; T 63 = Buryatia; T 64 = Tyva; T 65 = Khakasia; T 66 = Altay; T 67 = Zabaikalsk; T 68 = Krasnoyarsk; T 69 = Irkutsk; T 70 = Kemerovo; T 71 = Novosibirsk; T 72 = Omsk; T 73 = Tomsk; R 1 13 = ranks of land activity per land categories: R 1 = cropland; R 2 = fallow; R 3 = perennial plantings; R 4 = hayfields; R 5 = rangeland; R 6 = woodlands; R 7 = forest range; R 8 = water reserve lands; R 9 = residential and industrial lands; R 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; R 11 = wetlands; R 12 = disturbed lands; R 13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.
Table A24. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Far Eastern Federal District.
Table A24. Ranking of Tj territories on land activity, Far Eastern Federal District.
ParameterT74T75T76T77T78T79T80T81T82 R 74 82 i ¯
R1482262151120011
R210337174811056020
R33528111712322012
R47533122231653017
R58132351641435013
R62518148163306118
R770662178636467442
R820503847306735702843
R979784875708059618170
R1078795875638062608171
R112225292111132042719
R1276803078591624524151
R132438113032226015
Rj(113)404434406440458363295496323402
Note: T74 = Sakha Yakutia; T75 = Kamchatka; T76 = Primorye; T77 = Khabarovsk; T78 = Amur; T79 = Magadan; T80 = Sakhalin; T81 = Jewish AO; T82= Chukotka; R(1–13) = ranks of land activity per land categories: R1 = cropland; R2 = fallow; R3 = perennial plantings; R4 = hayfields; R5 = rangeland; R6 = woodlands; R7 = forest range; R8 = water reserve lands; R9 = residential and industrial lands; R10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; R11 = wetlands; R12 = disturbed lands; R13 = barren. Source: Authors’ development.

Appendix D

Table A25. Ranking of Tj territories on a parameter of agricultural land activity, federal districts grouping.
Table A25. Ranking of Tj territories on a parameter of agricultural land activity, federal districts grouping.
Land CategoryParameterCentralNorthwesternSouthernNorth CaucasianVolgaUralSiberianFar Eastern
L1 A j L 1 ¯ 0.3670.0200.4130.3300.3500.0460.0470.004
R j 1 ¯ 5920564657292811
Rj1101119738932179917433397
L2 A j L 2 ¯ 0.0070.0010.0010.0010.0080.0050.0040.001
R j 2 ¯ 3513181737373220
Rj2599128128116522224379182
L3 A j L 3 ¯ 0.0080.0010.0070.0100.0030.0010.0000
R j 3 ¯ 5926546347242012
Rj31010258381444654145240110
L4 A j L 4 ¯ 0.0400.0110.0200.0330.0350.0170.0180.004
R j 4 ¯ 5631275341484117
Rj4947311186370572289495151
L5 A j L 5 ¯ 0.0900.0070.3130.3360.1340.0210.0420.004
R j 5 ¯ 4217647548294113
Rj5721171449525671171495118
L6 A j L 6 ¯ 0.3630.5490.0700.1150.3770.4000.5780.552
R j 6 ¯ 4729695944382618
∑Rj6804294483416617226315166
L7 A j L 7 ¯ 0.0270.0220.0150.0150.0150.0280.0110.013
R j 7 ¯ 2336484940545242
∑Rj7397364333344561323620379
L8 A j L 8 ¯ 0.0200.0620.0520.0230.0240.0980.0330.033
R j 8 ¯ 5718175344254443
∑Rj8974180117368621150526385
L9 A j L 9 ¯ 0.0190.0030.0160.0140.0110.0040.0020.001
R j 9 ¯ 2157232430496070
∑Rj9363566162165423294717631
L10 A j L 10 ¯ 0.0220.0050.0160.0170.0170.0050.0030.001
R j 10 ¯ 1752323525556171
∑Rj10286520226246346328733636
L11 A j L 11 ¯ 0.0190.1520.0120.0030.0090.2310.0810.069
R j 11 ¯ 4814537460143219
∑Rj1181614436951983786378172
L12 A j L 12 ¯ 0.0030.00100.0010.0010.00100
R j 12 ¯ 2133524743335751
∑Rj12361330361329601200683456
L13 A j L 13 ¯ 0.0040.0850.0110.0420.0050.0710.0920.235
R j 13 ¯ 5441442053453315
Rj13922413310137736272395136
R j i ¯ per district542388556614569480526402
Rji per district92113876389443007960288263093619
Note: L 1 = cropland; L 2 = fallow; L 3 = perennial plantings; L 4 = hayfields; L 5 = rangeland; L 6 = woodlands; L 7 = forest range; L 8 = water reserve lands; L 9 = residential and industrial lands; L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; L 11 = wetlands; L 12 = disturbed lands; L 13 = barren; A j L i ¯ is averaged in respect to individual values of A j L i in T j territories per districts; R j i ¯ is averaged in respect to individual rankings R j i in T j territories per districts; R j i = sum of land activity rankings per districts. Source: Authors’ development.

References

  1. Klein Goldewijk, K.; Beusen, A.; Van Drecht, G.; De Vos, M. The HYDE 3.1 Spatially explicit database of human-induced global land-use change over the past 12,000 Years. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2011, 20, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lambin, E.; Turner, B.; Geist, H.; Agbola, S.; Angelsen, A.; Bruce, J.; Coomes, O.; Dirzo, R.; Fischer, G.; Folke, C.; et al. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2001, 11, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, H.; Xu, E.; Zhu, H. Ecological-living-productive land classification system in China. J. Resour. Ecol. 2017, 8, 121–128. [Google Scholar]
  4. Diogo, V. Agricultural Land Systems: Explaining and Simulating Agricultural Land-Use Patterns; Vrije Universiteit: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030, an FAO Perspective; Earthscan Publications: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gibbs, H.K.; Ruesch, A.S.; Achard, F.; Clayton, M.K.; Holmgren, P.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 16732–16737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Smith, P. Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob. Food Secur. 2013, 2, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Smith, P.; Gregory, P.; van Vuuren, D.; Obersteiner, M.; Rounsevell, M.; Woods, J.; Havlik, P.; Stehfest, E.; Bellarby, J. Competition for land. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365, 2941–2957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Erokhin, V.; Gao, T. Handbook of Research on Globalized Agricultural Trade and New Challenges for Food Security; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  10. DeFries, R.S.; Rudel, T.; Uriarte, M.; Hansen, M. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 178–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ajani, J. The global wood market, wood resource productivity and price trends: An examination with special attention to China. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 38, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lambin, E. Global land availability: Malthus versus Ricardo. Glob. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Platt, R. The Loss of farmland: Evolution of public response. Geogr. Rev. 1977, 67, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Briggs, D.; Yurman, E. Disappearing farmland: A national concern. Soil Conserv. 1980, 45, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  15. Vining, D.; Plaut, T.; Beri, K. Urban encroachment on prime agricultural land in the United States. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 1977, 2, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sioen, G.B.; Terada, T.; Sekiyama, M.; Yokohari, M. Resilience with mixed agricultural and urban land uses in Tokyo, Japan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ramadani, I.; Gashi, G.; Ejupi, A.; Bytyqi, V. The environment impacts of power plants in Kosovo and sustainable development. J. Int. Environ. Appl. Sci. 2011, 6, 332–338. [Google Scholar]
  18. O’Meara, M. Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet; Worldwatch Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mather, A.S.; Needle, C.L. The forest transition: A theoretical basis. Area 1998, 30, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lerman, Z.; Shagaida, N. Land policies and agricultural land markets in Russia. Land Use Policy 2007, 24, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fadeeva, O.; Soliev, I. Institutional analysis of land tenure system in post-socialist Russia: Actors, Rules and Land Use. In KULUNDA: Climate Smart Agriculture. Innovations in Landscape Research; Frühauf, M., Guggenberger, G., Meinel, T., Theesfeld, I., Lentz, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 259–273. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pismennaya, E.; Loshakov, A.; Shevchenko, D.; Odincov, S.; Kipa, L. Comprehensive approach for evaluating the potential of the Stavropol agricultural territory. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues 2015, 5, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  23. Trukhachev, V.; Ivolga, A.; Lescheva, M. Enhancement of land tenure relations as a factor of sustainable agricultural development: Case of Stavropol Krai, Russia. Sustainability 2015, 7, 164–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rozhkov, V. The Analysis of the Factors that influence on the land market of the Russian Federation. Russ. Entrep. 2016, 21, 2939–2952. [Google Scholar]
  25. Visser, O.; Spoor, M.; Mamonova, N. Is Russia the emerging global “breadbasket”? re-cultivation, agroholdings and grain production. Eur. -Asia Stud. 2014, 10, 1589–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Smirnov, V.; Mulendeeva, A. A Structural analysis of land use in Russia. Natl. Interests Priorities Secur. 2019, 15, 1057–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Prishchepov, A.; Müller, D.; Baumann, M.; Kuemmerle, T.; Alcantara, C.; Radeloff, V.C. Underlying Drivers and Spatial Determinants of Post-Soviet Agricultural Land Abandonment in Temperate Eastern Europe. In Land-Cover and Land-Use Changes in Eastern Europe after the Collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991; Gutman, G., Radeloff, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 91–117. [Google Scholar]
  28. Milanova, E. Land use/cover Change in Russia within the Context of Global Challenges. Rom. J. Geogr. 2012, 56, 105–116. [Google Scholar]
  29. Prishchepov, A.; Schierhorn, F.; Dronin, N.; Ponkina, E.; Müller, D. 800 Years of Agricultural Land-Use Change in Asian (Eastern) Russia. In KULUNDA: Climate Smart Agriculture. Innovations in Landscape Research; Frühauf, M., Guggenberger, G., Meinel, T., Theesfeld, I., Lentz, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 67–87. [Google Scholar]
  30. Grishchenko, M. Land Use Changes in Russia and Their Impact on Migrating Geese; Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pismennaya, E.; Stukalo, V.; Kipa, L. Development of a project of land tenure in the Stavropol territory. Sib. J. Life Sci. Agric. 2016, 11, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stanfield, D. Creation of Land Markets in Transition Countries: Implications for the Institutions of Land Administration; University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison, WI, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  33. Milanova, E.; Lioubimtseva, E.; Tcherkashin, P.; Yanvareva, L. Land use/cover change in Russia: Mapping and GIS. Land Use Policy 1999, 16, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Griewald, Y.; Clemens, G.; Kamp, J.; Gladun, E.; Hölzel, N.; von Dressler, H. Developing land use scenarios for stakeholder participation in Russia. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. United Nations Convention to Combat Decertification. Sustainable Land Management (SLM). Available online: https://knowledge.unccd.int/topics/sustainable-land-management-slm (accessed on 30 May 2020).
  36. Small, C.; Pozzi, F.; Elvidge, C.D. Spatial Analysis of Global Urban Extents from the DMSP-OLS Night-Lights. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 96, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Elnaggar, A. Spatial and temporal changes in agricultural lands eastern Nile-delta, Egypt. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2013, 4, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Baker, J.M.; Everett, Y.; Liegel, L.; Van Kirk, R. Patterns of irrigated agricultural land conversion in a western U.S. watershed: Implications for landscape-level water management and land-use planning. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 27, 1145–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Prishchepov, A.; Müller, D.; Dubinin, M.; Baumann, M.; Radeloff, V. Determinants of agricultural land abandonment in post-soviet European Russia. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 873–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Brueckner, J.K. Urban sprawl: Diagnosis and remedies. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2000, 23, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brown, D.G.; Johnson, K.M.; Loveland, T.R.; Theobald, D.M. Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 1851–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Erma, B.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, M.; Shu, J. Study of the Russian land market. Nat. Inn. Asia 2018, 6, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
  43. Verburg, P.H.; Schot, P.P.; Dijst, M.J.; Veldkamp, A. Land use change modelling: Current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal 2004, 61, 309–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Van Doorn, A.; Bakker, M. The Destination of Arable Land in a Marginal Agricultural Landscape in South Portugal: An Exploration of Land Use Change Determinants. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 1073–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nainggolan, D.; de Vente, J.; Boix-Fayos, C.; Termansen, M.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. Afforestation, agricultural abandonment and intensification: Competing trajectories in semi-arid mediterranean agro-ecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 159, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Diogo, V.; Koomen, E. Land-use change in Portugal 1990–2006: Main processes and underlying factors. Cartographica 2012, 47, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Stacherzak, A.; Heldak, M.; Hajek, L.; Przybyla, K. State interventionism in agricultural land turnover in Poland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lovell, S.T. Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2499–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Moss, M. Land processes and land classification. J. Environ. Manag. 1985, 20, 295–319. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rowe, S. Soil, Site and Land Classification. For. Chron. 1962, 38, 420–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shagaida, N. On criticism of agricultural land classification. Russ. Agric. Sci. 2007, 33, 59–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nosov, S. Fundamentals of productive land classification for suitability for agricultural use. Econ. Labor Manag. Agric. 2018, 43, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Macht, V.; Makenova, S.; Karpova, O. The analysis of the existing method of land classification. Vestn. Voronezh State Agrar. Univ. 2017, 52, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Loshakov, A. Methods and results of zoning of agricultural landscapes on the susceptibility to degradation processes and suitability for agricultural land use in the Stavropol territory. Mosc. Econ. J. 2019, 11, 48–57. [Google Scholar]
  55. DeMers, M. Land classification research: A retrospective and agenda. Int. J. Appl. Geospat. Res. 2014, 5, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Federal State Statistics Service. Regions of Russia. Social and Economic Indicators. Available online: https://www.gks.ru/folder/210/document/13204 (accessed on 11 February 2020).
  57. Federal State Statistics Service. All-Russian Agricultural Census. 2016. Available online: https://www.gks.ru/519 (accessed on 11 February 2020).
  58. Nikonova, G.; Trafimov, A. All-russian agricultural census as a source of information about the development of agricultural sector. Bull. St. -Petersburg State Agrar. Univ. 2017, 49, 207–212. [Google Scholar]
  59. Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography. Availability and Allocation of Lands in the Russian Federation. Available online: https://rosreestr.ru/site/activity/sostoyame-zemerrossii/gosudarstvennyy-natsionalnyy-doklad-o-sostoyanii-i-ispolzovanii-zemel-v-rossiyskoy-federatsii/ (accessed on 11 February 2020).
  60. Wright, L.E.; Zitzmann, W.; Young, K.; Googins, R. LESA—agricultural land evaluation and site assessment. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1983, 38, 82–86. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cocks, K.D.; Ive, J.R.; Davis, J.R.; Baird, I.A. SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: An australian approach to land-use planning. 1. The SIRO-PLAN land-use planning method. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1983, 10, 331–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Burrough, P.A.; Frank, A.U. Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  63. Munroe, D.K.; Croissant, C.; York, A. Land use policy and landscape fragmentation in an urbanizing region: Assessing the impact of zoning. Appl. Geogr. 2005, 25, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Grčman, H.; Vozel, S.; Zupanc, V. Soil Characteristics and agricultural land evaluation. Geod. Vestn. 2017, 61, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Odak, I.; Tomić, H.; Mastelić Ivić, S. Valuation of agricultural land fragmentation. Geod. List 2017, 71, 215–232. [Google Scholar]
  66. Boitt, M.K.; Langat, F.C.; Kapoi, J.K. Geospatial agro-climatic characterization for assessment of potential agricultural areas in Somalia, Africa. J. Agric. Inform. 2018, 9, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lata, S. Irrigation Water Management for Agricultural Development in Uttar Pradesh, India; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  68. Espinosa, J.; Moreno, J. Agricultural Land Use. In The Soils of Ecuador; Espinosa, J., Moreno, J., Bernal, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 151–162. [Google Scholar]
  69. Mazurkin, P. Activity of land Resources in Russia Districts. In Proceedings of the International Forum “Actual Problems of Contemporary Land Management”, Moscow, Russia, 25 December 2014. [Google Scholar]
  70. Mazurkin, P.; Mihailova, S. Factor Analysis Categories of Land for the District Russia. In Proceedings of the International Forum “Actual Problems of Contemporary Land Management”, Moscow, Russia, 25 December 2014. [Google Scholar]
  71. Buckett, M. An Introduction to Farm Organization and Management; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  72. Artamonova, I.; Baturina, I.; Mikhajluk, O.; Poverinova, E. Improving methodologies of assessing the efficiency of agricultural land use. Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Humanit. Res. 2020, 392, 121–124. [Google Scholar]
  73. Stupen, R.; Stupen, M.; Ryzhok, Z.; Stupen, O. Modeling of the effective functioning of the agricultural lands market in Ukraine. Geod. Cartogr. 2019, 45, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shishkina, N.; Yushkova, V.; Mamistova, E. Assessment of the use of the potential of agricultural lands in Voronezh region. Kne Life Sci. 2019, 14, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yerseitova, A.; Issakova, S.; Jakisheva, L.; Nauryzbekova, A.; Moldasheva, A. Efficiency of using agricultural land in Kazakhstan. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2018, 6, 558–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kotykova, O.; Kuzmenko, O.; Semenchuk, I. Sustainable agricultural land use in the post-socialist camp countries: Monitoring and evaluation. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2019, 5, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhildikbaeva, A.; Sabirova, A.; Pentaev, T.; Omarbekova, A. Improving the agricultural land use system in the Republic of Kazakhstan. J. Environ. Manag. Tour. 2018, 9, 1585–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Koomen, E.; Rietveld, P.; De Nijs, T. Modelling land-use change for spatial planning support. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2008, 42, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Alcamo, J.; Kok, K.; Busch, G.; Priess, J. Searching for the future of land: Scenarios from the local to global scale. In Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts; Lambin, E., Geist, H., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 71–116. [Google Scholar]
  80. Lavalle, C.; Baranzelli, C.; Mubareka, S.; Rocha Gomes, C.; Hiederer, R.; Batista e Silva, F.; Estreguil, C. Implementation of the CAP Policy Options with the Land Use Modelling Platform: A First Indicator-Based Analysis; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  81. Bakker, M.M.; Govers, G.; Kosmas, C.; Venacker, V.; Van Oost, K.; Rounsevell, M. Soil erosion as a driver of land-use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 105, 467–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hatna, E.; Bakker, M. Abandonment and expansion of arable land in europe. Ecosystems 2011, 14, 720–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Millington, J.; Perry, G.; Romero-Calcerrada, R. Regression Techniques for examining land use/cover change: A case study of a Mediterranean landscape. Ecosystems 2007, 10, 562–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Feranec, J.; Jaffrain, G.; Soukup, T.; Hazeu, G. Determining changes and flows in European landscapes 1990–2000 using CORINE Land cover data. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Filzmoser, P.; Hron, K. Correlation analysis of compositional data. Math. Geosci. 2009, 41, 905–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Aitchison, J. A Concise Guide to Compositional Data Analysis. Available online: http://ima.udg.edu/activitats/codawork05/A_concise_guide_to_compositional_data_analysis.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2020).
  87. Pawlowsky-Glahn, V.; Egozcue, J.J.; Tolosana-Delgado, R. Lecture Notes on Compositional Data Analysis. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Lecture-Notes-on-Compositional-Data-Analysis-Pawlowsky-Glahn-Egozcue/89dac9d573264a0fa6a550f9dd8ee8f6d13f2178 (accessed on 7 May 2020).
  88. Greenacre, M. Compositional Data Analysis in Practice; Chapman and Hall/CRC: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  89. Aitchison, J. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  90. Pawlowsky-Glahn, V.; Egozcue, J.J.; Tolosana-Delgado, R. Modeling and Analysis of Compositional Data; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  91. Aitchison, J. The statistical analysis of compositional data. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1982, 44, 139–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Long, W.; Wang, Q. Two methods of correlation coefficient on compositional data. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 18, 1757–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Van den Boogaart, G.; Tolosana-Delgado, R. Analyzing Compositional Data with R; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  94. Egozcue, J.J.; Pawlowsky-Glahn, V.; Mateu-Figueraz, G.; Barceló-Vidal, C. Isometric Logratio Transformations for compositional data analysis. Math. Geol. 2003, 35, 279–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Egozcue, J.J.; Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. Groups of parts and their balances in compositional data analysis. Math. Geol. 2005, 37, 795–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Korhonová, M.; Hron, K.; Klimcíková, D.; Müller, L.; Bednář, P.; Barták, P. Coffe aroma—Statistical analysis of compositional data. Talanta 2009, 80, 710–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Thió-Henestrosa, S.; Martín-Fernández, J.A. Dealing with Compositional Data: The Freeware CoDaPack. Math. Geol. 2005, 37, 773–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Egozcue, J.J.; Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. Compositional data: The sample space and its structure. Test 2019, 28, 599–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Muriithi, F.K. Centered Log-Ratio (clr) Transformation and robust principal component analysis of long-term NDVI data reveal vegetation activity linked to climate processes. Climate 2015, 3, 135–149. [Google Scholar]
  100. Bichler, B.; Haering, A.M.; Dabbert, S. The determinants of the spatial distribution of organic farming in Germany. Ber. Uber Landwirtsch. -Hambg. 2005, 83, 50–75. [Google Scholar]
  101. Chu, D. Spatial Distribution of Land-Use Types. In Remote Sensing of Land Use and Land Cover in Mountain Region; Chu, D., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 67–80. [Google Scholar]
  102. Smith, O.; Cohen, A.; Reganold, J.; Jones, M.; Orpet, R.; Taylor, J.; Thurman, J.; Cornell, K.; Olsson, R.; Ge, Y.; et al. Landscape context affects the sustainability of organic farming systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 2870–2878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Bakker, M.M.; Hatna, E.; Kuhlman, T.; Mücher, C. Changing environmental characteristics of European cropland. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 522–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Annetts, J.E.; Audsley, E.; Mayr, T.; Reginster, I. Modelling the spatial distribution of agricultural land use at the regional level. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 95, 465–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. White, R.; Engelen, G. Cellular dynamics and GIS: Modelling spatial complexity. Geogr. Syst. 1994, 1, 237–253. [Google Scholar]
  106. White, R.; Engelen, G. Cellular automata as the basis of integrated dynamic regional modelling. Environ. Plan. B 1997, 24, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Shagaida, N. Agricultural land market in Russia: Living with constraints. Comp. Econ. Stud. 2005, 47, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Franks, J.R.; Davydova, I. Reforming the farming sector in Russia: New options for old problems. Outlook Agric. 2005, 34, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Patsiorkovsky, V.; O’Brien, D.; Wergen, S.K. Land reform and land relations in rural Russia. East. Eur. Countrys. 2005, 11, 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  110. Ioffe, G.; Nefedova, T.; de Beurs, K. Agrarian transformation in the Russian breadbasket: Contemporary trends as manifest in Stavropol. Post-Sov. Aff. 2014, 30, 441–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Van de Steeg, J.A.; Verburg, P.H.; Baltenweck, I.; Staal, S.J. Characterization of the spatial distribution of farming systems in the Kenyan highlands. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Gärtner, D.; Keller, A.; Schulin, R. A simple regional downscaling approach for spatial distributing land use types for agricultural land. Agric. Syst. 2013, 120, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Daniels, T. When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  114. Su, S.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, Y. Transformation of agricultural landscapes under rapid urbanization: A threat to sustainability in Hang-Jia-Hu Region, China. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Yeh, C.-T.; Huang, S.-L. Investigating spatiotemporal patterns of landscape diversity in response to urbanization. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dredge, D. Sustainable rapid urban expansion: The case of Xalapa, Mexico. Habitat Int. 1995, 19, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Parsipour, H.; Popović, S.; Behzadfar, M.; Skataric, G.; Spalevic, V. Cities expansion and land use changes of agricultural and garden lands in peri-urban villages (case study: Bojnurd). Agric. For. 2019, 65, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Li, E.; Endter-Wada, J.; Li, S. Dynamics of Utah’s agricultural landscapes in response to urbanization: A comparison between irrigated and non-irrigated agricultural lands. Appl. Geogr. 2019, 105, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Al-Kofahi, S.; Nammouri, N.; Sawalhah, M.; Al-Hammouri, A.; Aukour, F. Assessment of the urban sprawl on agriculture lands of two major municipalities in Jordan using supervised classification techniques. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Zubair, O.; Ji, W.; Festus, O. Urban expansion and the loss of prairie and agricultural lands: A satellite remote-sensing-based analysis at a sub-watershed scale. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lucero, L.; Tarlock, A.D. Water supply and urban growth in New Mexico: Same old, same old or a new era. Nat. Resour. J. 2003, 43, 803–835. [Google Scholar]
  122. Staal, S.J.; Baltenweck, I.; Waithaka, M.M.; de Wolff, T.; Njoroge, L. Location and uptake: Integrated household and GIS analysis of technology adoption and land use, with application to smallholder dairy farms in Kenya. Agric. Econ. 2002, 27, 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ramadani, I.; Bytyqi, V. Processes affecting sustainable use of agricultural land in Kosovo. Quaest. Geogr. 2018, 37, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Meyfroidt, P.; Schierhorn, F.; Prishchepov, A.; Müller, D.; Kuemmerle, T. Drivers, constraints and trade-offs associated with recultivating abandoned cropland in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 37, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Nguyen, H.; Hölzel, N.; Völker, A.; Kamp, J. Patterns and determinants of post-soviet cropland abandonment in the Western Siberian Grain Belt. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Oyebanji, I.J.; Adeniyi, B.; Khobai, H.; Le Roux, P. Green Growth and Environmental Sustainability in Nigeria. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2017, 7, 216–223. [Google Scholar]
  127. Deng, X.; Li, Z. Economics of Land Degradation in China. In Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development; Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., von Braun, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 385–399. [Google Scholar]
  128. Müller, D.; Sikor, T. Effects of postsocialist reforms on land cover and land use in south-eastern Albania. Appl. Geogr. 2006, 26, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Müller, D.; Kuemmerle, T.; Rusu, M.; Griffiths, P. Lost in transition: Determinants of post-socialist cropland abandonment in Romania. J. Land Use Sci. 2009, 4, 109–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Sorokin, A.; Bryzzhev, A.; Strokov, A.; Mirzabaev, A.; Johnson, T.; Kiselev, S. The economics of land degradation in Russia. In Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development; Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., von Braun, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 541–576. [Google Scholar]
  131. Kashtanov, A. Concept of sustainable development of agriculture of Russia in XXI century. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2001, 3, 263–265. [Google Scholar]
  132. Dobrovolski, G. Soil Degradation and Preservation; Moscow State University: Moscow, Russia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  133. Solgerel, P.; Narantuya, A.; Amarmend, C.; Erdenechimeg, A.; Purvee, L. Assessment of vulnerability for land degradation. J. Adv. Nat. Sci. 2018, 5, 438–443. [Google Scholar]
  134. MacDonald, D.; Crabtree, J.R.; Wiesinger, G.; Dax, T.; Stamou, N.; Fleury, P.; Lazpita, J.G.; Gibon, A. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 59, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Nakvasina, E.; Parinova, T.; Romanov, E.; Volkov, A.; Golubeva, L.; Popova, A. Monitoring of agricultural lands in Arkhangelsk Region. Iop Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 263, 012025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Postek, P.; Leń, P.; Stręk, Ż. The proposed indicator for fragmentation of agricultural land. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 103, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Popov, A. Assessment of land fragmentation of agricultural enterprises in Ukraine. Econ. Ann. -XXI 2017, 164, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Merot, A.; Belhouchette, H. Hierarchical patch dynamics perspective in farming system design. Agronomy 2019, 9, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ripoche, A.; Rellier, J.P.; Martin-Clouaire, R.; Paré, N.; Biarnès, A.; Gary, C. Modelling adaptive management of intercropping in vineyards to satisfy agronomic and environmental performances under Mediterranean climate. Environ. Model. Softw. 2011, 26, 1467–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Nefedova, T. Ten Topical Issues about Rural Russia: A Geographer’s Viewpoint; LENAND: Moscow, Russia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  141. King, R.; Burton, S. Land fragmentation: Notes on a fundamental rural spatial problem. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 1982, 6, 475–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Tan, S.; Heerink, N.; Qu, F. Land fragmentation and its driving forces in China. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Dhakal, B.N.; Khanal, N.R. Causes and consequences of fragmentation of agricultural land: A case of Nawalparasi district, Nepal. Geogr. J. Nepal 2018, 11, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Gill, A.R.; Viswanathan, K.K.; Hassan, S. Is environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) still relevant? Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2017, 7, 156–165. [Google Scholar]
  145. Hunt, D.V.L.; Lombardi, D.R.; Atkinson, S.; Barber, A.R.G.; Barnes, M.; Boyko, C.T.; Brown, J.; Bryson, J.; Butler, D.; Caputo, S.; et al. Scenario archetypes: Converging rather than diverging themes. Sustainability 2012, 4, 740–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Diputra, E.M.; Baek, J. Is growth good or bad for the environment in Indonesia? Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2018, 8, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  147. Mahcene, Z.; Abdellah, M.; Zergoune, M.; Lacheheb, M. Land degradation and economic development in Algeria. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 137–142. [Google Scholar]
  148. Bukvareva, E.; Grunewald, K.; Bobylev, S.; Zamolodchikov, D.; Zimenko, A.; Bastian, O. The current state of knowledge of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Russia: A Status Report. Ambio 2015, 44, 491–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Tchebakova, N.; Parfenova, E.; Lysanova, G.; Soja, A. Agroclimatic potential across central Siberia in an altered twenty-first century. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 045207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Foley, J.A.; DeFries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K.; et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Janssen, M.A.; Anderies, J.M.; Ostrom, E. Robustness of social-ecological systems to spatial and temporal variability. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2007, 20, 307–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Scale to classify T j territories on the degree of agricultural land activity. Source: Authors’ development.
Figure 1. Scale to classify T j territories on the degree of agricultural land activity. Source: Authors’ development.
Land 09 00201 g001
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of agricultural lands in Russia. Note: 1 = Belgorod; 2 = Bryansk; 3 = Vladimir; 4 = Voronezh; 5 = Ivanovo; 6 = Kaluga; 7 = Kostroma; 8 = Kursk; 9 = Lipetsk; 10 = Moscow Oblast; 11 = Orel; 12 = Ryazan; 13 = Smolensk; 14 = Tambov; 15 = Tver; 16 = Tula; 17 = Yaroslavl; 18 = Karelia; 19 = Komi; 20 = Arkhangelsk; 21 = Vologda; 22 = Kaliningrad; 23 = Leningrad; 24 = Murmansk; 25 = Novgorod; 26 = Pskov; 27 = Nenets; 28 = Adygeya; 29 = Kalmykia; 30 = Crimea; 31 = Krasnodar; 32 = Astrakhan; 33 = Volgograd; 34 = Rostov; 35 = Dagestan; 36 = Ingushetia; 37 = Kabardino-Balkaria; 38 = Karachaevo-Cherkessia; 39 = North Osetia-Alania; 40 = Chechnya; 41 = Stavropol; 42 = Bashkortostan; 43 = Mari El; 44 = Mordovia; 45 = Tatarstan; 46 = Udmurtia; 47 = Chuvashia; 48 = Perm; 49 = Kirov; 50 = Nizhny Novgorod; 51 = Orenburg; 52 = Penza; 53 = Samara; 54 = Saratov; 55 = Ulyanovsk; 56 = Kurgan; 57 = Sverdlovsk; 58 = Tyumen; 59 = Chelyabinsk; 60 = Khanty-Mansi; 61 = Yamal-Nenets; 62 = Altay Republic; 63 = Buryatia; 64 = Tyva; 65 = Khakasia; 66 = Altay; 67 = Zabaikalsk; 68 = Krasnoyarsk; 69 = Irkutsk; 70 = Kemerovo; 71 = Novosibirsk; 72 = Omsk; 73 = Tomsk; 74 = Sakha Yakutia; 75 = Kamchatka; 76 = Primorye; 77 = Khabarovsk; 78 = Amur; 79 = Magadan; 80 = Sakhalin; 81 = Jewish AO; 82 = Chukotka. The Republic of Crimea was included in the study due to its current position as a territory under the de-facto control of Russia. This in no way reflects the authors’ attitude to the international status of the area. Source: Authors’ development.
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of agricultural lands in Russia. Note: 1 = Belgorod; 2 = Bryansk; 3 = Vladimir; 4 = Voronezh; 5 = Ivanovo; 6 = Kaluga; 7 = Kostroma; 8 = Kursk; 9 = Lipetsk; 10 = Moscow Oblast; 11 = Orel; 12 = Ryazan; 13 = Smolensk; 14 = Tambov; 15 = Tver; 16 = Tula; 17 = Yaroslavl; 18 = Karelia; 19 = Komi; 20 = Arkhangelsk; 21 = Vologda; 22 = Kaliningrad; 23 = Leningrad; 24 = Murmansk; 25 = Novgorod; 26 = Pskov; 27 = Nenets; 28 = Adygeya; 29 = Kalmykia; 30 = Crimea; 31 = Krasnodar; 32 = Astrakhan; 33 = Volgograd; 34 = Rostov; 35 = Dagestan; 36 = Ingushetia; 37 = Kabardino-Balkaria; 38 = Karachaevo-Cherkessia; 39 = North Osetia-Alania; 40 = Chechnya; 41 = Stavropol; 42 = Bashkortostan; 43 = Mari El; 44 = Mordovia; 45 = Tatarstan; 46 = Udmurtia; 47 = Chuvashia; 48 = Perm; 49 = Kirov; 50 = Nizhny Novgorod; 51 = Orenburg; 52 = Penza; 53 = Samara; 54 = Saratov; 55 = Ulyanovsk; 56 = Kurgan; 57 = Sverdlovsk; 58 = Tyumen; 59 = Chelyabinsk; 60 = Khanty-Mansi; 61 = Yamal-Nenets; 62 = Altay Republic; 63 = Buryatia; 64 = Tyva; 65 = Khakasia; 66 = Altay; 67 = Zabaikalsk; 68 = Krasnoyarsk; 69 = Irkutsk; 70 = Kemerovo; 71 = Novosibirsk; 72 = Omsk; 73 = Tomsk; 74 = Sakha Yakutia; 75 = Kamchatka; 76 = Primorye; 77 = Khabarovsk; 78 = Amur; 79 = Magadan; 80 = Sakhalin; 81 = Jewish AO; 82 = Chukotka. The Republic of Crimea was included in the study due to its current position as a territory under the de-facto control of Russia. This in no way reflects the authors’ attitude to the international status of the area. Source: Authors’ development.
Land 09 00201 g002
Figure 3. Russian territories: types of agricultural land activity. Note: 1 = Belgorod; 2 = Bryansk; 3 = Vladimir; 4 = Voronezh; 5 = Ivanovo; 6 = Kaluga; 7 = Kostroma; 8 = Kursk; 9 = Lipetsk; 10 = Moscow Oblast; 11 = Orel; 12 = Ryazan; 13 = Smolensk; 14 = Tambov; 15 = Tver; 16 = Tula; 17 = Yaroslavl; 18 = Karelia; 19 = Komi; 20 = Arkhangelsk; 21 = Vologda; 22 = Kaliningrad; 23 = Leningrad; 24 = Murmansk; 25 = Novgorod; 26 = Pskov; 27 = Nenets; 28 = Adygeya; 29 = Kalmykia; 30 = Crimea; 31 = Krasnodar; 32 = Astrakhan; 33 = Volgograd; 34 = Rostov; 35 = Dagestan; 36 = Ingushetia; 37 = Kabardino-Balkaria; 38 = Karachaevo-Cherkessia; 39 = North Osetia-Alania; 40 = Chechnya; 41 = Stavropol; 42 = Bashkortostan; 43 = Mari El; 44 = Mordovia; 45 = Tatarstan; 46 = Udmurtia; 47 = Chuvashia; 48 = Perm; 49 = Kirov; 50 = Nizhny Novgorod; 51 = Orenburg; 52 = Penza; 53 = Samara; 54 = Saratov; 55 = Ulyanovsk; 56 = Kurgan; 57 = Sverdlovsk; 58 = Tyumen; 59 = Chelyabinsk; 60 = Khanty-Mansi; 61 = Yamal-Nenets; 62 = Altay Republic; 63 = Buryatia; 64 = Tyva; 65 = Khakasia; 66 = Altay; 67 = Zabaikalsk; 68 = Krasnoyarsk; 69 = Irkutsk; 70 = Kemerovo; 71 = Novosibirsk; 72 = Omsk; 73 = Tomsk; 74 = Sakha Yakutia; 75 = Kamchatka; 76 = Primorye; 77 = Khabarovsk; 78 = Amur; 79 = Magadan; 80 = Sakhalin; 81 = Jewish AO; 82 = Chukotka. The Republic of Crimea was included in the study due to its current position as a territory under the de-facto control of Russia. This in no way reflects the authors’ attitude to the international status of the area. Source: Authors’ development.
Figure 3. Russian territories: types of agricultural land activity. Note: 1 = Belgorod; 2 = Bryansk; 3 = Vladimir; 4 = Voronezh; 5 = Ivanovo; 6 = Kaluga; 7 = Kostroma; 8 = Kursk; 9 = Lipetsk; 10 = Moscow Oblast; 11 = Orel; 12 = Ryazan; 13 = Smolensk; 14 = Tambov; 15 = Tver; 16 = Tula; 17 = Yaroslavl; 18 = Karelia; 19 = Komi; 20 = Arkhangelsk; 21 = Vologda; 22 = Kaliningrad; 23 = Leningrad; 24 = Murmansk; 25 = Novgorod; 26 = Pskov; 27 = Nenets; 28 = Adygeya; 29 = Kalmykia; 30 = Crimea; 31 = Krasnodar; 32 = Astrakhan; 33 = Volgograd; 34 = Rostov; 35 = Dagestan; 36 = Ingushetia; 37 = Kabardino-Balkaria; 38 = Karachaevo-Cherkessia; 39 = North Osetia-Alania; 40 = Chechnya; 41 = Stavropol; 42 = Bashkortostan; 43 = Mari El; 44 = Mordovia; 45 = Tatarstan; 46 = Udmurtia; 47 = Chuvashia; 48 = Perm; 49 = Kirov; 50 = Nizhny Novgorod; 51 = Orenburg; 52 = Penza; 53 = Samara; 54 = Saratov; 55 = Ulyanovsk; 56 = Kurgan; 57 = Sverdlovsk; 58 = Tyumen; 59 = Chelyabinsk; 60 = Khanty-Mansi; 61 = Yamal-Nenets; 62 = Altay Republic; 63 = Buryatia; 64 = Tyva; 65 = Khakasia; 66 = Altay; 67 = Zabaikalsk; 68 = Krasnoyarsk; 69 = Irkutsk; 70 = Kemerovo; 71 = Novosibirsk; 72 = Omsk; 73 = Tomsk; 74 = Sakha Yakutia; 75 = Kamchatka; 76 = Primorye; 77 = Khabarovsk; 78 = Amur; 79 = Magadan; 80 = Sakhalin; 81 = Jewish AO; 82 = Chukotka. The Republic of Crimea was included in the study due to its current position as a territory under the de-facto control of Russia. This in no way reflects the authors’ attitude to the international status of the area. Source: Authors’ development.
Land 09 00201 g003
Table 1. Study flow algorithm.
Table 1. Study flow algorithm.
StageMethodSection in the Paper for MethodsResultsSection in the Paper for Results
1Merging of agricultural census data with operative land cadaster information.Section 2.1Establishment of an array of thirteen categories of agricultural (five variables) and non-agricultural (eight variables) land.-
2Computation of the shares of land categories in the land funds across Russia’s territories.Section 2.2Map of the spatial distribution of agricultural lands in Russia per territories.Section 3.1
3Ranking of the shares of land categories in territory land funds.Section 2.3Rating scores and scales to measure the degree of agricultural land activity. Section 3.2
4Centered log-ratio transformation of compositional land shares data to an unconstrained space and correlation analysis of the obtained standard multivariate data.Section 2.4Four centered log-ratio-transformed correlation matrices based on the level of agricultural land activity.Section 3.3
5Computation of the coefficient of correlation variance.Section 2.5Identification of strong synergies between the variations of the proportions of agricultural and non-agricultural land categories in the land funds.Section 3.3
Source: Authors’ development.
Table 2. Land categories in the study.
Table 2. Land categories in the study.
CodesLand CategoriesDefinitions
L1CroplandsLand systematically cultivated for crop production, including perennial grasses, clean fallow, and land under greenhouses.
L2FallowsLand previously used as cropland but left unseeded for more than one year and not included in clean fallow.
L3Perennial plantingsLand under homogeneous stands of arboreal plants, bushes, and herbaceous plants used for the production of horticultural, technical, and medical products.
L4HayfieldsFields where herbaceous plants are systematically grown for hay.
L5RangelandsLand systematically and predominantly used for livestock grazing, including lands appropriate for livestock grazing but not used as hayfields or fallow.
L6WoodlandsLand that is mostly covered with woods or dense growths of trees and shrubs.
L7Forest rangesForest plantings on military lands, urban lands, and lands of rural settlements.
L8Water reserve landsLand covered by surface water in water bodies (seas, lakes, ponds, water storage reservoirs) and land under waterworks and other facilities located within water bodies.
L9Residential and industrial landsAreas of intensive use in cities, towns, and villages with much of the land covered by residential and industrial structures (those occupied by residential real estates, administrative buildings, shopping centers, industrial and commercial complexes), including in the locations isolated from urban areas.
L10Lands under transportation and communication infrastructureLand under railways and highways, right-of-ways, cuttings in forests, livestock alleyways, and other routes of communication, as well as areas involved in processing, treatment, and transportation of water, gas, oil, and electricity.
L11WetlandsSwampy or marshy areas saturated with moisture where the water table is at, near, or above the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods during the year, including during the growing season.
L12Disturbed landsLand from which vegetation, topsoil, or overburden is removed or other damage is made as a result of economic and other human activities or natural processes and which is not reclaimed under the reclamation plan.
L13Barren landsLand of limited ability to support life and incapable of producing crops or any useful vegetation.
Source: Authors’ development based on Rosstat [56,57] and Rosreestr [59].
Table 3. Correlation matrix for type I territories.
Table 3. Correlation matrix for type I territories.
RegressandsRegressors
ATRL1ATRL2ATRL3ATRL4ATRL5ATRL6ATRL7ATRL8ATRL9ATRL10ATRL11ATRL12
ATRL20.5317
ATRL30.62060.7844
ATRL40.41950.29730.7109
ATRL50.66190.68360.30880.6619
ATRL60.58540.81270.39170.14850.5193
ATRL70.88630.73400.62260.69930.42860.3275
ATRL80.40010.48720.43450.72260.67190.50150.4812
ATRL90.89250.51000.70010.61330.74830.49900.62910.7255
ATRL100.96910.59020.95830.91210.41280.38020.80160.34760.2196
ATRL110.77790.20140.42960.77240.19440.84030.29740.74020.32090.7947
ATRL120.18030.70980.50440.17250.45920.62740.30760.15770.81820.26190.5044
ATRL130.39560.73170.37120.45940.82150.66190.47640.18100.44640.31180.62750.2999
Note: A T R L i = centered log-ratio-transformed data: A T R L 1 = cropland; A T R L 2 = fallow; A T R L 3 = perennial plantings; A T R L 4 = hayfields; A T R L 5 = rangeland; A T R L 6 = woodlands; A T R L 7 = forest range; A T R L 8 = water reserve lands; A T R L 9 = residential and industrial lands; A T R L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; A T R L 11 = wetlands; A T R L 12 = disturbed lands; A T R L 13 = barren; bold denotes a strong correlation, CATRli > Ccv (0.7022 for type I territories). Source: Authors’ development.
Table 4. Correlation matrix for type II territories.
Table 4. Correlation matrix for type II territories.
RegressandsRegressors
ATRL1ATRL2ATRL3ATRL4ATRL5ATRL6ATRL7ATRL8ATRL9ATRL10ATRL11ATRL12
ATRL20.3291
ATRL30.67190.4417
ATRL40.52130.80130.5016
ATRL50.27060.38140.19280.4836
ATRL60.88040.75120.77930.33910.8284
ATRL70.48170.57880.48010.64810.26620.4571
ATRL80.29400.69410.55920.57020.18270.27190.7027
ATRL90.75920.42900.77280.48170.50110.04580.26640.5822
ATRL100.89180.28110.91020.14820.76610.34430.19880.55910.6619
ATRL110.11570.17920.28660.72050.80030.45090.42950.36190.72680.1384
ATRL120.68340.38100.30170.01330.45060.73180.60400.07440.81120.67140.2857
ATRL130.23750.0270.59930.29150.62660.50110.13020.25990.20040.27770.52960.4018
Note: A T R L i = centered log-ratio-transformed data: A T R L 1 = cropland; A T R L 2 = fallow; A T R L 3 = perennial plantings; A T R L 4 = hayfields; A T R L 5 = rangeland; A T R L 6 = woodlands; A T R L 7 = forest range; A T R L 8 = water reserve lands; A T R L 9 = residential and industrial lands; A T R L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; A T R L 11 = wetlands; A T R L 12 = disturbed lands; A T R L 13 = barren; bold denotes a strong correlation, CATRli > Ccv (0.5904 for type II territories). Source: Authors’ development.
Table 5. Correlation matrix for type III territories.
Table 5. Correlation matrix for type III territories.
RegressandsRegressors
ATRL1ATRL2ATRL3ATRL4ATRL5ATRL6ATRL7ATRL8ATRL9ATRL10ATRL11ATRL12
ATRL20.5638
ATRL30.88190.4291
ATRL40.80250.40100.8211
ATRL50.28110.63880.91570.5037
ATRL60.90120.59170.89240.45450.7684
ATRL70.47090.75590.67130.75530.83150.2819
ATRL80.68800.70000.50040.38190.77000.41960.3358
ATRL90.85440.30930.81200.65940.54280.79200.39020.4971
ATRL100.79230.44580.75380.28880.41110.83280.70100.69470.7748
ATRL110.70010.62190.48160.13290.81480.18870.64090.50680.85910.2509
ATRL120.54930.77040.33090.86170.14990.27960.84190.39910.44040.78030.3012
ATRL130.80570.12950.77720.60260.28910.49050.39480.48190.90620.76960.01800.8016
Note: A T R L i = centered log-ratio-transformed data: A T R L 1 = cropland; A T R L 2 = fallow; A T R L 3 = perennial plantings; A T R L 4 = hayfields; A T R L 5 = rangeland; A T R L 6 = woodlands; A T R L 7 = forest range; A T R L 8 = water reserve lands; A T R L 9 = residential and industrial lands; A T R L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; A T R L 11 = wetlands; A T R L 12 = disturbed lands; A T R L 13 = barren; bold denotes a strong correlation, CATRli > Ccv (0.7458 for type III territories). Source: Authors’ development.
Table 6. Correlation matrix for type IV territories.
Table 6. Correlation matrix for type IV territories.
RegressandsRegressors
ATRL1ATRL2ATRL3ATRL4ATRL5ATRL6ATRL7ATRL8ATRL9ATRL10ATRL11ATRL12
ATRL20.4018
ATRL30.73010.3884
ATRL40.38990.38920.8496
ATRL50.69330.25940.79150.8101
ATRL60.67050.32170.40240.17880.2894
ATRL70.81110.79100.38810.25190.32210.7518
ATRL80.35950.61590.20530.37060.15530.29950.4085
ATRL90.42760.67570.58290.48810.73910.27090.70470.6586
ATRL100.60830.47920.72940.32010.38990.38920.39990.59930.3788
ATRL110.42910.70320.50220.27180.03770.49200.47930.28190.30030.2709
ATRL120.18290.03770.46030.68830.74180.32070.69910.18420.63090.53460.1442
ATRL130.66930.48710.79180.55930.12940.76220.04120.39090.18990.65110.28950.1566
Note: A T R L i = centered log-ratio-transformed data: A T R L 1 = cropland; A T R L 2 = fallow; A T R L 3 = perennial plantings; A T R L 4 = hayfields; A T R L 5 = rangeland; A T R L 6 = woodlands; A T R L 7 = forest range; A T R L 8 = water reserve lands; A T R L 9 = residential and industrial lands; A T R L 10 = lands under transportation and communication infrastructure; A T R L 11 = wetlands; A T R L 12 = disturbed lands; A T R L 13 = barren; bold denotes a strong correlation, CATRli > Ccv (0.6293 for type IV territories). Source: Authors’ development.
Back to TopTop