Disaggregating Land Degradation Types for United Nations (UN) Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Analysis Using the State of Ohio (USA) as an Example
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Inherent Soil Quality and Soil Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of Ohio (USA) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Degree of Soil Development and Weathering | |||||
Slight 16.2% | Moderate 78.1% | Strong 5.7% | |||
Entisols | Inceptisols | Histosols | Alfisols | Mollisols | Ultisols |
5.0% | 11.0% | 0.3% | 60.7% | 17.4% | 5.7% |
Midpoint storage and social cost of soil organic carbon (SOC): 7.2 × 1011 kg C, $122.5B | |||||
3.2 × 1010 kg | 7.8 × 1010 kg | 2.9 × 1010 kg | 3.6 × 1011 kg | 1.9 × 1011 kg | 3.3 × 1010 kg |
$5.4B | $13.2B | $4.9B | $61.7B | $31.8B | $5.5B |
4.4% | 10.8% | 4.0% | 50.4% | 25.9% | 4.5% |
Midpoint storage and social cost of soil inorganic carbon (SIC): 4.3 × 1011 kg C, $72.8B | |||||
1.9 × 1010 kg | 4.5 × 1010 kg | 5.0 × 108 kg | 2.1 × 1011 kg | 1.6 × 1011 kg | 0 |
$3.3B | $7.5B | $85.6M | $34.9B | $26.9B | $0 |
4.5% | 10.4% | 0.1% | 48.1% | 36.9% | 0% |
Midpoint storage and social cost of total soil carbon (TSC): 1.2 × 1012 kg C, $195.2B | |||||
5.1 × 1010 kg | 1.2 × 1011 kg | 3.0 × 1010 kg | 5.7 × 1011 kg | 3.5 × 1011 kg | 3.3 × 1010 kg |
$8.7B | $20.7B | $5.0B | $96.6B | $58.7B | $5.5B |
4.4% | 10.6% | 2.6% | 49.5% | 30.0% | 2.8% |
Sensitivity to climate change | |||||
Low | Low | High | High | High | Low |
SOC and SIC sequestration (recarbonization) potential | |||||
Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
2. Materials and Methods
United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), Target, and Indicator 1 |
---|
United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. |
Target 15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation neutral world. |
Current Indicator 15.3.1 Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area. |
Demonstration of geospatially enabled disaggregated indicators for LD and LDN: |
Degraded land is disaggregated by different types of LD (barren land, developed, agriculture), soil types, administrative units, and trends over time to determine land degradation neutrality (LDN) (Metric: area, %; Scale: local, regional, national, global; Measurement frequency: annual). 2. Damages associated with LD within the administrative unit and trends over time (Metric: loss of C sequestration potential, soil carbon (C) loss, social costs of soil carbon (C) (SC-CO2); Scale: local, regional, national, global; Measurement frequency: annual). |
3. Results
3.1. SDG 15: Life on Land. Protect, Restore, and Promote Sustainable Use of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Sustainably Manage Forests, Combat Desertification, Halt and Reverse Land Degradation and Biodiversity Loss (Target 15.3 By 2030, Combat Desertification, Restore Degraded Land and Soil, including Land Affected by Desertification, Drought and Floods, and Strive to Achieve a Land Degradation Neutral World)
3.2. Newly Proposed Potential Disaggregation of LD and LDN Indicators Using the State of Ohio (USA) as a Case Study
3.2.1. Disaggregating Land Degradation by Different Types of Land Degradation, Soil Types, Administrative Units, and Trends over Time
3.2.2. Damages from Land Degradation and Trends over Time
4. Discussion
4.1. Enhancing the United Nations (UN) Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Analysis with Different Land Degradation Types
4.1.1. Significance of the Results for Ohio’s Climate Change
4.1.2. Significance of Ohio’s Results for the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Other UN Initiatives
- From 2001 to 2016 there was a reduction in the amount of hay/pasture in OH on all soil orders (Table 3). This reduction likely causes less land to be available for agricultural uses, causing an overall reduction in food production in these areas (relevant for UN SDG 2: Zero Hunger);
- Within OH, development occurred across all the soil orders, which includes Histosols with high soil C levels, and the most agriculturally critical soils for food production (e.g., Alfisols, Mollisols) (Table 3, relevant for UN SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production);
- There have not been any completed climate change plans to support preparation and adaptation for the state of OH (https://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/plans.html (accessed on 10 April 2024) [27]. Land degradation in OH caused damage to dynamic soil quality (soil health) and contributed to climate change worldwide because of soil C loss and the resultant carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Ohio developments are directly responsible for LD damages, with 10,116.3 km2 of the state developed, causing midpoint losses of 1.4 × 1011 kg of total soil carbon (TSC) with a midpoint social cost of carbon dioxide emissions (SC-CO2) of $23.9B (where B = billion = 109, USD). Much of the newly developed land areas (577.6 km2) that occurred between the study years of 2001 and 2016 likely resulted in the midpoint loss of 8.4 × 109 kg of TSC and a resultant midpoint value of $1.4B in SC-CO2. Little available land (1.2% of the total land area) can likely be used for NBS to address LD by sequestering additional soil C. It should be noted that monetary estimates of damages are based on fixed (non-market) and theoretical SC-CO2 values, which are not collected as fines or damages from any parties. (addressing UN SDG 13: Climate Action);
- Almost 67% of land in OH experienced anthropogenic LD primarily due to agriculture (81%) before and up through 2016. All six soil orders were subject to various degrees of anthropogenic LD: Mollisols (88%), Alfisols (70%), Histosols (58%), Entisols (55%), Inceptisols (43%), and Ultisols (22%). Recent developments (2001–2016) showed zero increase in the total anthropogenic LD, however, there was an increase of 6.0% in the developed type of LD in the state, which was not balanced by the potential NBS land. Development has reduced overall soil resources from land cover change between 2001 and 2016 for all 88 counties and six economic development regions in OH (Table 3, Table S5). There were cutbacks in the total areas of deciduous and evergreen forests, and hay/pasture land covers needed for C sequestration and atmospheric pollution reduction (Table 3) (addressing UN SDG 15: Life on Land; UN Convention to Combat Desertification; UN Convention on Biological Diversity; UN Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework);
- There is a new focus on maintaining ecosystem integrity and resilience, as demonstrated by the agreement reached at the UN’s fifteenth meeting of the conference of the parties (COP 15) which adopted the UN Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [38]. This framework has the goal (Goal A) of maintaining, enhancing, and restoring the resilience, connectivity, and integrity of all ecosystems, and included the target (Target 11) to both restore as well as maintain and even enhance ecosystem services and functions (e.g., soil health, air, water, and climate regulation). In the current study, we found that overall LDN may not be a good measure of LD status, given that developments occurred across all soil orders, notably including the agricultural productive Alfisols and Mollisol soil orders and the C-rich Histosol soil order. These developments decreased biodiversity through a reduction in pedodiversity (soil diversity). The techniques detailed in this study can help develop the best possible data to guide decision-making, which can be used to support Target 21 which focuses on data development to support governance in an equitable way.
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Glossary
B | Billion |
BS | Base saturation |
CO2 | Carbon dioxide |
EPA | Environmental Protection Agency |
GHG | Greenhouse gases |
LD | Land degradation |
LDN | Land degradation neutrality |
LULC | Land use/land cover |
M | Million |
MRLC | Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium |
N | North |
NBS | Nature-based solutions |
NLCD | National Land Cover Database |
NOAA | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
NRCS | Natural Resources Conservation Service |
OH | Ohio |
SC-CO2 | Social cost of carbon emissions |
SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals |
SIC | Soil inorganic carbon |
SOC | Soil organic carbon |
SSURGO | Soil Survey Geographic Database |
STATSGO | State Soil Geographic Database |
TSC | Total soil carbon |
UN | United Nations |
UNCCD | United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification |
USD | United States Dollar |
USDA | United States Department of Agriculture |
W | West |
References
- United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Available online: https://www.unccd.int/convention/overview (accessed on 8 April 2024).
- United Nations (UN) Convention to Combat Desertification. Decision 3/COP.12 (COP 12, Ankara, 2015). Integration of the Sustainable Development Goals and Target into the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the Intergovernmental Working Group Report on Land Degradation Neutrality. Available online: https://www.unccd.int/official-documentscop-12-ankara-2015/3cop12 (accessed on 8 April 2024).
- United Nations (UN). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015; 35p. [Google Scholar]
- Sims, N.C.; Newnham, G.J.; England, J.R.; Guerschman, J.; Cox, S.J.D.; Roxburgh, S.H.; Viscarra Rossel, R.A.; Fritz, S.; Wheeler, I. Good Practice Guidance; SDG Indicator 15.3.1, Proportion of Land That Is Degraded Over Total Land Area; Version 2.0; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification: Bonn, Germany, 2021; ISBN 978-92-95118-35-5. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations (UN) General Assembly. Resolution 68/261. Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 29 January 2014. Available online: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N13/455/11/PDF/N1345511.pdf?OpenElement (accessed on 8 April 2024).
- Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Shepherd, G.B. Possible integration of soil information into land degradation analysis for the United Nations (UN) Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) concept: A case study of the contiguous United States of America (USA). Soil Syst. 2024, 8, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations (UN) General Assembly. Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations Statistics Division: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/ (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- Mikhailova, E.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. Valuation of soil organic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Zhang, L. Determining the value of soil inorganic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikhailova, E.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. Valuation of total soil carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. n.d.a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online: https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/soils (accessed on 8 April 2024).
- The United States Census Bureau. TIGER/Line Boundary Shapefiles. 2018. Available online: https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.2018.html (accessed on 8 April 2024).
- Amoakwah, E.; Lucas, S.T.; Didenko, N.A.; Rahman, M.A.; Islam, K.R. Impact of deforestation and temporal land-use change on soil organic carbon storage, quality, and lability. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tayyebi, A.; Pijanowski, B.C.; Pekin, B.K. Land use legacies of the Ohio River Basin: Using a spatially explicit land use change model to assess past and future impacts on aquatic resources. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 57, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, D.H.; Bender, C.; Kigochie, P.; Pleasants, J. 2001. The state of Ohio’s urban environment: Geographic patterns and recent trends. Ohio J. Sci. 2001, 101, 79–89. [Google Scholar]
- Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Photos of Soil Orders. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=nrcs142p2_053588 (accessed on 9 April 2024).
- Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2). Available online: https://sdmdataaccess.sc.egov.usda.gov (accessed on 9 April 2024).
- EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Social Cost of Carbon. EPA Fact Sheet. 2016. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_html (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM). The SDGs Geospatial Roadmap. Prepared by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on the Sustainable Development Goals Indicators. Statistical Commission. Fifty-Third Session, 1–4 March 2022. Item 3(a) of the Provisional Agenda Items for Discussion and Decision: Data and Indicators for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/53rdsession/documents/BG-3a-SDGs-Geospatial-Roadmap-E.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium—MRLC. Available online: https://www.mrlc.gov/ (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). ArcGIS Pro 2.6. Available online: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/2.6/get-started/whats-new-in-arcgis-pro.htm (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- Guo, Y.; Amundson, R.; Gong, P.; Yu, Q. Quantity and spatial variability of soil carbon in the conterminous United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reith, J.; Ghazaryan, G.; Muthoni, F.; Dubovyk, O. Assessment of land degradation in semiarid Tanzania—Using multiscale remote sensing datasets to support sustainable development goal 15.3. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991; U.S. Bureau of the Census: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; p. 201. Available online: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1991/compendia/statab/111ed.html (accessed on 4 April 2024).
- Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Shepherd, G.B. Opportunities for monitoring soil and land development to support United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A case study of the United States of America (USA). Land 2023, 12, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgetown Law. Georgetown Climate Center. State Adaptation Progress Tracker. Available online: https://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/plans.html (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency. What climate change means for Ohio. EPA 430-F-16-037. August 2016. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-oh.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- Maas, E.; Lal, R.; Coleman, K.; Montenegro, A.; Dick, W.A. Modeling soil organic carbon in corn (Zea mays L.)-based systems in Ohio under climate change. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fall, S.; Niyogi, D.; Gluhovsky, A.; Pielke, R.A., Sr.; Kalnay, E.; Rochon, G. Impacts of land use cover on temperature trends over the continental United States: Assessment using the North American Regional Reanalysis. Int. J. Climatol. 2010, 30, 1980–1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fall, S.; Diffenbaugh, N.; Niyogi, D.; Pielke, R.A., Sr.; Rochon, G. Temperature and equivalent temperature over the United States (1979–2005). Int. J. Climatol. 2010, 30, 2045–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niyogi, D.; Mishra, V. Climate-agriculture vulnerability assessment for the midwestern United States. In Climate Change in the Midwest: Impacts, Risks, Vulnerability and Adaptation; Pryor, S.C., Ed.; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2013; pp. 69–81. [Google Scholar]
- Vanhala, L.; Hestbaek, C. Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2016, 16, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Paris Agreement. 2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2024).
- UN Climate Press Release. COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New “Loss and Damage” Fund for Vulnerable Countries. 20 November 2022. Available online: https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-anddamage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries (accessed on 5 April 2024).
- Bhandari, P.; Warszawski, N.; Cogan, D.; Gerholdt, R. What is “Loss and Damage” from Climate Change? 6 Key Questions, Answered. World Resources Institute. 2022. Available online: https://www.wri.org/insights/loss-damage-climate-change (accessed on 5 April 2024).
- UN. Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. Treaty Collection. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- UN. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2022. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222 (accessed on 10 April 2024).
NLCD Land Cover Classes (LULC), Soil Health Continuum | 2016 Total Area by LULC (km2, %) | Degree of Weathering and Soil Development | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Slight | Moderate | Strong | ||||||
Entisols | Inceptisols | Histosols | Alfisols | Mollisols | Ultisols | |||
2016 Area by Soil Order (km2) | ||||||||
Woody wetlands | Higher | 941.3 (1.2) | 123.5 | 174.0 | 42.7 | 493.8 | 107.0 | 0.3 |
Shrub/Scrub | 302.9 (0.4) | 28.5 | 48.7 | 0.1 | 139.4 | 9.6 | 76.7 | |
Mixed forest | 2805.8 (3.5) | 268.0 | 499.5 | 1.8 | 1678.0 | 142.0 | 216.5 | |
Deciduous forest | 21,385.4 (26.7) | 1203.4 | 4094.0 | 22.6 | 11587.6 | 1311.5 | 3166.2 | |
Herbaceous | 513.7 (0.6) | 95.3 | 59.1 | 1.5 | 253.3 | 47.4 | 57.1 | |
Evergreen forest | 354.9 (0.4) | 31.1 | 49.5 | 0.1 | 173.4 | 29.0 | 71.8 | |
Emergent herbaceous wetlands | 244.5 (0.3) | 25.2 | 89.7 | 19.1 | 88.3 | 22.1 | 0.1 | |
Hay/Pasture | 10,952.0 (13.7) | 740.5 | 1269.0 | 23.9 | 7324.7 | 892.0 | 701.9 | |
Cultivated crops | 32,361.6 (40.4) | 489.2 | 1652.1 | 79.4 | 20104.4 | 9948.1 | 88.4 | |
Developed, open space | 5305.1 (6.6) | 295.2 | 518.2 | 10.0 | 3551.0 | 766.1 | 164.6 | |
Developed, low intensity | 3193.3 (4.0) | 307.2 | 223.4 | 4.5 | 2189.8 | 431.1 | 37.2 | |
Developed, medium intensity | 1174.8 (1.5) | 221.6 | 69.6 | 1.7 | 718.5 | 156.3 | 7.0 | |
Developed, high intensity | 443.2 (0.6) | 111.8 | 20.9 | 0.7 | 247.9 | 60.3 | 1.6 | |
Barren land | Lower | 110.9 (0.1) | 43.5 | 10.0 | 0.6 | 42.0 | 8.7 | 6.1 |
Totals | 80,089.4 (100%) | 3984.0 | 8777.7 | 208.7 | 48,592.1 | 13,931.3 | 4595.5 |
Soil Order | Total Area | Anthropogenically Degraded Land | Types of Anthropogenic Degradation | Land Availability for Nature-Based Solutions | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barren | Developed | Agriculture | |||||
(km2) | (%) | (km2) | (km2) | (km2) | (km2) | (km2) | |
Slightly Weathered Soils | |||||||
12,970.5 | 16.2 | 6093.1 (−0.6) | 54.1 (−1.9) | 1784.8 (+3.7) | 4254.2 (−2.3) | 287.4 (+41.5) | |
Entisols | 3984.0 | 5.0 | 2209.0 (−1.0) | 43.5 (−3.1) | 935.8 (+3.6) | 1229.7 (−4.1) | 167.3 (+37.2) |
Inceptisols | 8777.7 | 11.0 | 3763.2 (−0.4) | 10.0 (+1.4) | 832.1 (+3.8) | 2921.1 (−1.5) | 117.9 (+48.9) |
Histosols | 208.7 | 0.3 | 120.9 (+0.1) | 0.6 (+43.6) | 16.9 (+7.2) | 103.4 (−1.2) | 2.2 (+14.4) |
Moderately Weathered Soils | |||||||
62,523.4 | 78.1 | 46,440.9 (+0.1) | 50.7 (−2.1) | 8121.0 (+6.6) | 38,269.2 (−1.2) | 500.3 (+31.3) | |
Alfisols | 48,592.1 | 60.7 | 34,178.3 (+0.1) | 42.0 (−4.3) | 6707.2 (+6.4) | 27,429.1 (−1.3) | 434.7 (+34.8) |
Mollisols | 13,931.3 | 17.4 | 12,262.6 (0.0) | 8.7 (+9.7) | 1413.8 (+8.0) | 10,840.1 (−0.9) | 65.6 (+11.7) |
Strongly Weathered Soils | |||||||
4595.5 | 5.7 | 1006.9 (−2.1) | 6.1 (−10.0) | 210.5 (+2.1) | 790.3 (−3.2) | 139.9 (+20.8) | |
Ultisols | 4595.5 | 5.7 | 1006.9 (−2.1) | 6.1 (−10.0) | 210.5 (+2.1) | 790.3 (−3.2) | 139.9 (+20.8) |
Total | 80,089.4 | 100.0 | 53,540.9 (0.0) | 110.9 (−2.5) | 10,116.3 (+6.0) | 43,313.7 (−1.4) | 927.5 (+32.5) |
NLCD Land Cover Classes (LULC), Soil Health Continuum Dynamics | Change in Area, 2001–2016 (%) | Degree of Weathering and Soil Development | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Slight | Moderate | Strong | ||||||
Entisols | Inceptisols | Histosols | Alfisols | Mollisols | Ultisols | |||
Change in Area, 2001–2016 (%) | ||||||||
Woody wetlands | Higher | −0.4 | −0.2 | −0.5 | −0.3 | −0.4 | −0.1 | 0.3 |
Shrub/Scrub | 129.9 | 524.8 | 132.8 | 82.5 | 126.5 | 157.9 | 87.1 | |
Mixed forest | 2.6 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 7.5 | |
Deciduous forest | −1.3 | −3.0 | −0.9 | −1.6 | −1.5 | −1.4 | −0.6 | |
Herbaceous | 13.0 | 31.4 | 22.4 | 3.8 | 16.7 | 0.5 | −16.1 | |
Evergreen forest | −0.9 | 3.0 | 1.2 | −3.3 | −3.3 | −1.0 | 1.9 | |
Emergent herbaceous wetlands | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.1 | −0.3 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 2.4 | |
Hay/Pasture | −6.9 | −6.9 | −5.1 | −9.9 | −6.9 | −9.9 | −5.8 | |
Cultivated crops | 0.7 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 24.7 | |
Developed, open space | 2.3 | −1.2 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 0.8 | |
Developed, low intensity | 5.1 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 6.1 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 3.3 | |
Developed, medium intensity | 20.6 | 9.6 | 21.1 | 32.8 | 22.9 | 27.8 | 25.1 | |
Developed, high intensity | 28.3 | 11.9 | 27.9 | 34.0 | 34.0 | 41.4 | 55.1 | |
Barren land | Lower | −2.4 | −3.1 | 1.4 | 43.7 | −4.2 | 10.1 | −9.5 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Brown, C.E. Disaggregating Land Degradation Types for United Nations (UN) Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Analysis Using the State of Ohio (USA) as an Example. Earth 2024, 5, 255-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5020014
Mikhailova EA, Zurqani HA, Lin L, Hao Z, Post CJ, Schlautman MA, Brown CE. Disaggregating Land Degradation Types for United Nations (UN) Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Analysis Using the State of Ohio (USA) as an Example. Earth. 2024; 5(2):255-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5020014
Chicago/Turabian StyleMikhailova, Elena A., Hamdi A. Zurqani, Lili Lin, Zhenbang Hao, Christopher J. Post, Mark A. Schlautman, and Camryn E. Brown. 2024. "Disaggregating Land Degradation Types for United Nations (UN) Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Analysis Using the State of Ohio (USA) as an Example" Earth 5, no. 2: 255-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5020014
APA StyleMikhailova, E. A., Zurqani, H. A., Lin, L., Hao, Z., Post, C. J., Schlautman, M. A., & Brown, C. E. (2024). Disaggregating Land Degradation Types for United Nations (UN) Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Analysis Using the State of Ohio (USA) as an Example. Earth, 5(2), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5020014