Ecological Indicators 144 (2022) 109530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Review

Land degradation neutrality: A review of progress and perspectives

Siyuan Feng a, b, c, Wenwu Zhao a, c, *, Tianyu Zhan a, c, Yue Yan a, c, Paulo Pereira d
a
State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
b
MOE Engineering Research Center of Desertification and Blown-sand Control, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
c
Institute of Land Surface System and Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
d
Environmental Management Laboratory, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In October 2015, the 12th Conference of the Parties (COP12) of the United Nations Convention to Combat
Land degradation neutrality Desertification (UNCCD) proposed a definition for land degradation neutrality (LDN). In the same year, the
Land degradation United Nations made LDN one of the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Life on Land, 15.3 By 2030,
Land restoration
combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and
Sustainable development
LDN
strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world). LDN has critical to global environmental change and sustainable
SDG development research. The available LDN reviews mainly focus on the concept of LDN and do not sufficiently
elaborate on the progress of LDN research. The objectives of our work aim (1) to summarise the overview of
articles on LDN (number of articles, countries of publication, and research hotspots); (2) to outline LDN
assessment indicators; (3) to clarify the analysis methods of LDN driver factors; (4) to understand the research
progress of predicting LDN; and (5) to assess the relation between LDN and land degradation, land restoration,
and SDGs. To achieve our objectives, we searched articles focused on “land degradation neutrality” between
2013 and 2021 on the Web of Science. In total, we found 183 articles. By reviewing these papers, We found that
(1) the number of articles on “land degradation neutrality” increased from 2013 to 2021; the articles on LDN
mainly originate from Australia, Germany, the UK, Russia, Switzerland, and the USA; the research hotspots are
focused on land degradation, desertification, sustainable land management, conservation, climate change, and
land cover; (2) most of the research methods adopt the three indicators stipulated by the UNCCD (productivity,
land cover, and soil organic carbon), and sole studies have improved the indicators; (3) there are few studies on
the drivers and future projections of LDN, which have broad research prospects; and (4) LDN is a dynamic
balance between land degradation and restoration, and there are trade-offs and synergies between LDN and other
SDGs. The review revealed the need to (1) identify the LDN indicators in different regions and develop a method
to qualitatively and quantitatively monitor LDN changes; (2) quantify LDN drivers and clarify the factors that
affect LDN; and (3) clarify future LDN trends and promote SDG 15.3 implementation.

1. Introduction different emphases. However, independent of the land degradation

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) report defines land
degradation and desertification as “a state of sustained decline in the
level of ecosystem services over an extended period” (Adeel et al., 2005).
Additionally, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
(UNCCD) defines desertification as land degradation in drylands, rep­
resenting “a reduction or loss of biological or economic productivity”
(Law, 1994). The land degradation concepts are diverse and have
form, they have serious consequences. Land degradation costs approx­
imately $300 billion (Nkonya et al., 2016), and many ecosystem services
are lost due to land degradation (Pereira et al., 2018; Pereira, 2020a). It
is essential to clarify land degradation mechanisms, improve land
degradation monitoring systems, and propose scientific prevention and
control measures to reduce their impacts (Yuan et al., 2020). The di­
versity of land degradation definitions led to an unclear relationship
among multiple degradation drivers. Different indicators and research

Abbreviations: LDN, Land degradation neutrality; SDG, Sustainable development goal.

* Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing 100875, China.
E-mail addresses: siyuanfeng@mail.bnu.edu.cn (S. Feng), zhaoww@bnu.edu.cn (W. Zhao), zty5327@163.com (T. Zhan), yanyue@bnu.edu.cn (Y. Yan),
pereiraub@gmail.com (P. Pereira).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109530
Received 5 August 2022; Received in revised form 27 September 2022; Accepted 2 October 2022
Available online 6 October 2022
1470-160X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Feng et al.
methods for assessing degradation constitute a challenge in addressing
land degradation issues. In this context, “zero net land degradation” was
introduced at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Develop­
ment (Rio+20) in 2012. In October 2015, the 12th Conference of the
Parties (COP12) of the UNCCD adopted land degradation neutrality
(LDN) based on the concept of “zero net land degradation.” Land
degradation neutrality is “a state in which the quantity and quality of
land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services
and enhance food security remain stable or increase at a given spatial
and temporal scale and ecosystem-scale” (Clewella et al., 2004). Sub­
sequently, LDN was incorporated into the overall vision objectives of the
UNCCD and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 (Desa,
2016).
The LDN conceptual framework includes five modules (Cowie et al.,
2018). Module A is the vision of LDN that land-based natural capital can
be maintained or enhanced to support human well-being. In March
2021, 124 countries committed to setting voluntary targets (Li et al.,
2021b). Module B is the frame of reference that clarifies the LDN
baseline. Baseline is the premise and basis for assessing the LDN. The
UNCCD identifies the LDN baseline as the average of 15 years before
achieving SDG target 15.3. However, some researchers point out that
this method has limitations (Kust et al., 2018). Kust et al. (2022) pro­
posed using the concept of “optimal state” instead of “initial state” to set
LDN baseline, which can help avoid contradictions. For forestlands, the
carbon flux should be established as the LDN baseline over 15 years, the
productivity and biomass stock-up periods should be 100 years, and
species diversity and ecosystems should be over 200 years (Kust et al.,
2022). Module C is the mechanism for achieving LDN, which explains
the counterbalancing mechanism. LDN is a dynamic representation of
the balance between degraded and restored land areas, whereby
restored land can offset the same amount of degraded land for the same
land use. How the restored land area offsets the degraded land area has
also become a hot topic. When the value of the restored land and the
value of the degraded land are the same, they can only offset each other.
Identifying whether restored and degraded land is in the same land type
is a standard offset method. Module D achieves LDN. Achieving LDN
involves coordination among multiple development priorities (e.g.,
food, energy, water, climate change, health.). This requires an inte­
grated and indivisible balance between sustainable development’s
environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Coordination and
collaborative engagement between government agencies, county gov­
ernments, the private sector, civil society, and communities are condu­
cive to achieving LDN (Gichenje et al., 2019b). Moreover, sustainable
land management can prevent degradation. For instance, sustainable
agronomic measures on farmland (e.g., land improvement through
mulching or intercropping) are often used to prevent land degradation
(Liniger et al., 2019). Module E is monitoring LDN. Many researchers
have discussed LDN indicators (Chappell et al., 2019; Wuepper et al.,
2021; Kust et al., 2022). Accurately evaluating LDN is an important topic
in monitoring. Most studies focus on evaluating land degradation, and
some have established the LDN formula, which can reflect land degra­
dation dynamics and restoration areas (Erşahin, 2020). However,
further studies are needed in the monitoring domain.
LDN emphasises the link between human well-being and natural land
capital, and the concept of neutrality involves ecosystem degradation
and restoration (Yuan et al., 2020). Climate change and certain human
activities (e.g., consumption and urbanisation) affect land degradation.
Climate change (e.g., increased droughts, extreme rainfall events, fires)
causes land degradation by changing soil properties and vegetation
growth (Jiang et al., 2022). Human activities such as overgrazing,
deforestation, agriculture intensification, improper waste disposal, air
pollution, urbanisation, and mining exacerbate land degradation (Mitri
et al., 2019). Land restoration is also influenced by climate change and
human activities. Specific climate change (CO2 fertilisation effect and
suited precipitation) may promote vegetation growth (Burrell et al.,
2017; Donohue et al., 2013), and sound restoration projects also
2
Ecological Indicators 144 (2022) 109530
contribute to vegetation recuperation (Song et al., 2018). Clarifying the
impact of climate change and human activities on LDN in a changing
environment is beneficial for reducing the area of land degradation,
increasing the restored area, and achieving the goal of LDN. Moreover,
climate change has been dramatic in recent decades, leading to global
vegetation greening (Chen et al., 2019). However, related studies also
found that drylands may show an area expansion trend and a future­
greening trend slowdown (Feng and Fu, 2013; Huang et al., 2016;
Koutroulis, 2019). Continued increases in CO2 concentrations will
accelerate surface temperature increases and intensify climate warming.
Higher atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will increase future
climate variability, causing more extreme droughts and intense rainfall,
leading to more severe degradation (Sietz et al., 2017). On the other
hand, human activities have been affecting ecosystems with increasing
intensity, mainly in rapid urbanisation and deploying related ecological
projects (e.g., afforestation and reforestation projects) (Pereira et al.,
2020b). The future LDN is unknown under the complex interaction be­
tween climate and anthropogenic changes. Predicting LDN can guide
future land use planning (Schulze et al., 2021). Therefore, it is necessary
to predict LDN in the future under climate change conditions and human
activities. Although it is important to clarify the LDN driver factors and
predict LDN, there is a lack of literature summarising these two com­
ponents. The available LDN reviews mainly focus on the LDN concept
(Allen et al., 2020; Cowie et al., 2018) and do not sufficiently elaborate
on the progress of LDN research. Articles focused on LDN have started to
appear in recent years. We conducted a literature analysis on LDN using
CiteSpace, covering the years between 2013 and 2021. By reviewing
these articles, the objectives of our work are (1) to summarise the
overview of articles on LDN (number of articles, countries of publica­
tion, and research hotspots); (2) to outline LDN assessment indicators;
(3) to clarify the analysis methods of LDN driver factors; (4) to under­
stand the research progress of predicting LDN; and (5) to assess the
relation between LDN and land degradation, land restoration, and SDGs.
Answering the above questions helps to (1) better understand the
research progress of LDN; (2) enrich the LDN indicators; (3) clarify the
influencing factors of LDN; (4) predict LDN; and (5) understand the
relationship between LDN and land degradation, land restoration, and
SDGs.
2. Overview of LDN research
We systematically reviewed the literature on LDN in English, and we
conducted a literature analysis using Web of Science, covering the years
between 2013 and 2021. The following keyword “land degradation
neutrality” was used in the title, abstract and keywords. The date of the
literature search was December 31, 2021. We selected 183 papers from
the Web of Science Core Collection database. We used CiteSpace soft­
ware to analyse these 183 papers and obtained a hotspot map of coun­
tries and research areas. We used SigmaPlot10.0 software (2006 Systat
Software, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) to show the number of publications. As
shown in Fig. 1, the number of articles on LDN increased from 2013 to
2021. Articles on LDN started to appear in 2013, and the number of
articles on LDN reached its highest in 2021.
Articles on LDN were mainly from Australia, Germany, the UK,
Russia, Switzerland, and the USA (Fig. 2). Russia (Kust et al., 2018; Kust
et al., 2020; Tsymbarovich et al., 2020), Kenya (Gichenje and Godinho,
2018; Gichenje et al., 2019a), South Africa (von Maltitz et al., 2019),
Nigeria (Chidozie et al., 2021; Speranza et al., 2019), Kyrgyzstan
(Bobushev and Sultanaliev, 2020), South Korea (Cha et al., 2020),
Lebanon (Mitri et al., 2019), Ukraine (Kussul et al., 2017), Germany
(Wunder and Bodle, 2019), Italy (Sciortino et al., 2020), Ethiopia (Song
et al., 2021), Thailand (Moonrut et al., 2021), and China (Li et al.,
2021b, Zhao et al., 2021b) have carried out work related to the LDN.
Land degradation neutrality is a relatively new concept, mostly from
developed countries (Australia, Germany, the UK, Russia, Switzerland,
and the US). In addition, countries with severe land degradation
S. Feng et al.
Fig. 1. The number of articles on land degradation neutrality.
Fig. 2. Country distribution of land degradation neutrality articles.
problems also pay more attention on land degradation neutrality
(Kenya, South Africa, China). The LDN study area was initially limited to
dryland land, while the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (Rio+20) expanded the LDN study area from dryland land
to global land (Safriel, 2018). Since then, more and more countries have
paid attention to the issue of land degradation neutrality. As one of the
countries with the largest dryland, China has a relatively severe land
degradation problem. Most studies in China focus on land degradation
(Zhang et al., 2007, Mao et al., 2018, Han et al., 2019). There are also
several articles related to the LDN in China (Li et al., 2021b, Yuan et al.,
2022, Zhang et al., 2022). China has achieved LDN in term of UNCCD
(UNCCD, 2017), which is mainly due to the implementation of
remarkable ecological restoration projects in China, such as “Green
Great Wall” shelterbelt project, natural forest conservation project,
grassland ecological improvement subsidy and rewards policies, etc.
(UNCCD, 2017). These ecological restoration projects are beneficial to
controlling land degradation in recent years.
Fig. 3 shows the hot spots of LDN articles focusing on land degra­
dation, desertification, sustainable land management, conservation,
3
Ecological Indicators 144 (2022) 109530
Fig. 3. Keyword hotspot map of land degradation neutrality.
climate change, and land cover. The definition of LDN is closely related
to land degradation and conservation. Desertification is the land
degradation in drylands. Sustainable land management (SLM) helps
arrest the land degradation (Liniger et al., 2019). There is a direct
relationship between LDN and climate change. Climate change affects
land degradation and restoration, influencing LDN achievement (Jiang
et al., 2019). In turn, LDN improvement will be positive for the climate.
Land cover is an essential factor in assessing LDN. Relevant studies have
focused on developing high-precision land cover data to explore land-
use changes at the national level (Rabehi et al., 2020; Yailymov et al.,
2018).
3. LDN assessment methods
The assessment methods of land degradation neutrality mainly
include indicators and questionnaires. Land degradation is a multifac­
eted socioeconomic and environmental issue, and no single indicator
can adequately assess the health or condition of the land. Different
definitions of land degradation have resulted in various approaches to
land degradation assessment. To uniformly assess LDN and advance the
sustainable development goal (SDG) process, the UNCCD has defined
three indicators for assessing LDN: vegetation productivity, land cover,
and soil organic carbon. These indicators represent the capacity of the
land to provide ecosystem services (Orr et al., 2017). They were formally
adopted by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Devel­
opment Indicators (IAEG SDG) in November 2017. Some studies
(Table 1) have also proposed new indicators for assessing land degra­
dation. In addition, the questionnaire method is an important supple­
ment to the indicator method. Some studies (Nzuza et al., 2021) have
shown that the combination of the questionnaire method and the indi­
cator method is more conducive to assessing land degradation.
3.1. Indicator method
Several studies have made initial improvements to the three assess­
ment indicators specified by the UNCCD. The LDN indicator under the
UNCCD divides land into degraded and nondegraded land. However,
this dichotomy is too simplistic for identifying land degradation. Some
studies have combined LDN assessment with land degradation drivers
such as wildfire, landslides, and drought to identify 12 categories of land
degradation (Al Sayah et al., 2021), complementing the dichotomous
classification details. The UNCCD encourages the development of local
S. Feng et al. Ecological Indicators 144 (2022) 109530

Table 1 4. Research methods for LDN driver factors

Research methods for land degradation neutrality assessment.
Method Scale Indicator Source The drivers of land degradation are a hot topic. Clarifying land
degradation drivers and mechanisms is vital for ecological security and
Indicator Global Water erosion (Wuepper et al.,
method 2021) sustainable development. Natural and human factors are the main
Wind erosion (Chappell et al., drivers of surface vegetation and ecosystem changes (Piao et al., 2020;
2019) Zhu et al., 2016), playing an important role in land degradation. Natural
Timber stocks, forest cover, (Ptichnikov and factors mainly refer to climate parameters (e.g., temperature, precipi­
and biodiversity levels Martynyuk, 2020)
Region Land contamination, gully (Speranza et al.,
tation, wind). Human factors mainly refer to population increase, con­
erosion 2019) sumption, urbanisation, and ecological restoration projects (Guo et al.,
Soil loss rate, total soil loss (Tsymbarovich et al., 2020). Natural factors and human activities interact with and dramati­
2020) cally affect land degradation. Decoupling and quantifying how natural
Atmospheric humidity (Kuderina et al.,
factors and human activities impact land degradation and restoration
2020)
has become an important scientific issue.
Nevertheless, the relative impacts of climate change and human
Questionnaire Participatory mapping, (Crossland et al.,
activities on ecosystems are difficult to decouple, and the benefits of
method farmer interviews, and field 2018)
surveys ecological restoration projects are also difficult to quantify (Tong et al.,
Mapping questionnaire (von Maltitz et al., 2018). Previous works used machine learning, residual analysis, multi­
2019) ple linear regression, and geographically weighted regression to quan­
Expert empirical data (Garcia et al., 2019).
tify the contribution of driver factors to land degradation. Machine
Triangulation (Nzuza et al., 2021).
learning approaches can identify critical drivers of greening and
browning trends (Gichenje et al., 2019b). However, machine learning
indicators, which can enrich LDN assessment. As shown in Table 1, methods are only suitable for studies with large amounts of data. Some
water erosion (Wuepper et al., 2021), wind erosion (Chappell et al., studies distinguish the contributions of human activities and climate
2019), timber stocks, forest cover, and biodiversity levels (Ptichnikov change to land degradation by comparing actual and potential vegeta­
and Martynyuk, 2020) were added to the LDN assessment of land tion conditions (Jiang et al., 2022; Tong et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2010;
degradation at the global scale. According to the different land degra­ Zhao et al., 2021a). The impact of human activities on vegetation was
dation characteristics, new indicators have been added to local LDN characterised by constructing an NDVI linear regression model using
assessments at the regional scale, including land contamination, gully temperature and precipitation and calculating the residuals of simulated
erosion (Speranza et al., 2019), soil loss rate, total soil loss (Tsymbar­ and measured NDVI values. This approach offers the possibility to
ovich et al., 2020), and atmospheric humidity (Kuderina et al., 2020). quantify the benefits of ecological restoration projects. However, this
An enriched and improved LDN indicator is key to assessing the different method requires continuous data and is not sufficiently applicable to
types of land degradation at the local level, facilitating LDN assessment. studies with only one year of data. Geographically weighted regression
Productivity, land cover, and soil organic carbon are important LDN can capture the spatial non-stationarity driven by different socioeco­
indicators. However, the three indicators have many data products. nomic conditions. Therefore, it has also been used to capture the spatial-
Land degradation neutrality values calculated using different products temporal variability and drivers of land degradation (Ren et al., 2020).
may not be consistent (Ding et al., 2020), posing uncertainty regarding Boosted regression trees (BRT) (Jiang et al., 2019) and multiple linear
which products are more valuable for assessing land degradation. For regression (Zhang et al., 2018) can also explore the relative importance
instance, China’s main types of land degradation are wind erosion, of driving factors on land degradation to quantify the impact of climate
water erosion, salinisation, and freezethaw cycles (Li et al., 2021a). change and ecological restoration projects on vegetation change.
Although these indicators (adopted in LDN) can reflect the changes in Overall, these studies have mainly explored the drivers of land degra­
land health (land degradation status), how the above land degradation dation and restoration. The analysis of the drivers of change for LDN is
processes (land degradation) lead to a change in the value/status of one lacking. This phenomenon is closely related to the LDN assessment. Most
or more of the abovementioned three indicators still needs to be studied. existing LDN assessments are focused on portraying the spatial distri­
Meanwhile, most existing research methods aim to assess land degra­ bution of land degradation and restoration. Nevertheless, there is no
dation, but LDN is a term that involves degradation and restoration. unified method for LDN assessment. Whether land degradation and
There is a need to develop methods considering land degradation and restoration driver factors are consistent with LDN driver factors still
restoration to detect LDN progress. Simultaneously, degradation and needs to be investigated. However, the methods of land degradation and
restoration need to be graded to identify the status of LDN. restoration driving factors have promising implications for LDN. For
example, machine learning, residual analysis, multiple linear regression,
3.2. Questionnaire method and geographically weighted regression can be used to quantify the
contribution of the driving factors to LDN. Meanwhile, key climatic
Several studies have complemented the results of LDN with partici­ factors affect productivity, land cover, soil organic carbon, wind erosion,
patory mapping, farmer interviews, and field surveys (Crossland et al., and water erosion; thus, LDN must be clarified. Structural equation
2018), aiming to enhance stakeholders’ participation in LDN assess­ modelling can be used to elucidate the interactions between key climatic
ments. The location and extent of degradation were determined in South factors and vegetation productivity, land cover, soil organic carbon,
Africa based on the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and wind erosion, and water erosion.
Technologies (WOCAT) using a mapping questionnaire (QM). The re­
sults found that the land degradation areas identified by this method 5. LDN future projections
differed from those calculated from vegetation productivity, land cover,
and soil organic carbon (von Maltitz et al., 2019). Therefore, there is a The future trend of LDN is unknown since the impacts of climate
need to develop more fable methods to assess LDN. Previous studies change and human activity are not entirely understood. Dryland
have also shown that integrating remote sensing data and questionnaire ecosystem areas are at risk of expansion and continued land degradation
surveys can improve land degradation assessment (Nzuza et al., 2021). (Bryan et al., 2018), and achieving LDN in these areas in the future is not
optimistic. Some unknown questions may arise: (1) what is the future
trend of LDN? (2) Is ecological restoration still needed to restore land

4
S. Feng et al.
degradation in the future? (3) How much and where is ecological en­
gineering required? Faced with the increasingly severe climate change
situation and drastic human activities, we urgently need to predict the
trend of LDN in the future. There are few articles on future LDN pro­
jections. However, only two papers have made projections (Schulze
et al., 2021) and scenario analyses (Xu and Zhang, 2021). Therefore,
more studies are needed. Although only a few studies on future pro­
jections and scenario simulations exist, we can discuss the research
progress by decomposing the LDN assessment indicators (e.g., produc­
tivity and land cover).
Vegetation dynamics models simulate future productivity pro­
jections under different climate change models, such as the Coupled
Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). CIMP-6 presents new scenario
predictions based on shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) and the
latest representative concentration pathways (RCPs). The data simu­
lated by CMIP-6 are fed into the vegetation dynamics model to identify
future productivity. Common vegetation dynamics models include the
dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM), community land model
version 4 (CLM4), and general decomposition and yield (GDAY), among
others. Moreover, the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison
Project (ISIMIP, https://www.isimip.org/) offers users unfamiliar with
vegetation dynamics models the possibility to predict future produc­
tivity. ISIMIP is an integrated multi-model platform based on process
models to explore the impacts of global environmental change on sur­
face processes and human society. The results of ISIMIP have become the
main basis for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) re­
ports to simulate past and predict future impacts of global environ­
mental change on land surface and human societies (Ricke et al., 2016;
Veldkamp et al., 2017; Warszawski et al., 2014).
Land-use models are commonly used to simulate future land use and
land cover. Commonly used land-use models are machine learning and
statistical models, cellular automata (CA), sector-based economic
models, spatially disaggregated economic models, agent-based models
(ABM), and mixed-method models (Gomes et al., 2021). Land-use
models are more widely applied. Many global (Chen et al., 2020) and
regional (Liao et al., 2020) longtime series products can be used directly,
providing good data support for predicting LDN. Using the existing
ISIMIP data and land-use model data can make LDN projections, provide
a scientific basis for ecological engineering, and facilitate SDG assess­
ment and monitoring.
6. The connotation of LDN
6.1. LDN is a dynamic balance between land degradation and restoration
LDN is a dynamic representation of the balance between degraded
and restored land areas, whereby restored land can offset the same
amount of degraded land in the same land use. Land degradation inhibits
LDN achievement, and land restoration has the opposite effect (Fig. 4).
Additionally, there are threshold points for land degradation and
Fig. 4. Relationship between land degradation neutrality and land degradation and restoration.
5
Ecological Indicators 144 (2022) 109530
restoration (Jiang et al., 2020). Unreasonable human activities or
extreme climatic events lead to land degradation and a decline in land
function. Sustainable land management can avoid degradation before
the land degradation threshold is reached. Agronomic measures on
farmland (e.g., land improvement through mulching or intercropping)
are often used to prevent land degradation (Liniger et al., 2019). Pre­
vious studies have summarised sustainable land management’s practical
effects and associated costs (Giger et al., 2018; Liniger et al., 2019; Stavi
and Lal, 2015).
Land restoration is a means to reverse degradation and achieve LDN.
Deciding where and when to implement restoration activities is crucial
(Feng et al., 2022). A common approach is integrating land restoration
into land-use planning. For instance, China’s new ecological restoration
plan is a method for achieving LDN. Planning requires cost-effective
decision-making, and nonlinear ecosystem dynamics can inform the
selection of planning opportunities. Nonlinear ecosystem dynamics can
identify ecosystems’ critical thresholds (Suding and Hobbs, 2009). We
can search for ecological restoration opportunities using nonlinear
ecosystem dynamics and conduct a feasibility analysis for LDN in­
vestments (Jiang et al., 2020).
6.2. LDN has synergies and trade-offs with other sustainable development
goals
LDN is part of one of the SDGs (SDG 15 life on land; 15.3 target).
However, it has synergies and trade-offs with other SDGs. Achieving
LDN increases ecosystem services and improves soil quality, contrib­
uting to several other SDGs, including SDG 3 (good health and well-
being), SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation),
SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 12 (responsible
consumption and production), SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 14 (life
below water) and SDG 15 (life on land) (Akhtar-Schuster et al., 2017; Lal
et al., 2021). Specifically, achieving LDN can reduce land degradation
and improve rural household income to achieve SDG 1 (Gassner et al.,
2019). Achieving LDN can enhance ecosystem services and improve
human health and well-being (SDG 3). Research on LDN can defend
women’s land ownership and contribute to SDG 5 (gender equality). The
achievement of LDN can improve water quality and availability (SDG 6)
by decreasing the number of pollutants that reach the surface and
groundwater. Organic amendments (including organic waste) will
reduce soil pollution and promote SDG 12. LDN increases carbon
sequestration by ecosystems and contributes to SDG 13. Additionally, it
supplies habitat and refuge for life on land (SDG 15). However, the
increased ecological restoration area also decreases food production
space (SDG 2) and limits economic development (SDG 8). LDN imposes
several trade-offs that need to be minimised. Previous works highlighted
that SDG 2 have important trade-offs with other SDGs, such as SDG 6,
13, 14 and 15 (Viana et al., 2022).
S. Feng et al.
7. Conclusion
We observed that most articles focused on “land degradation
neutrality” have increased since 2013. By reviewing these articles, we
summarised the overview of articles on LDN (number of articles,
countries of publication, and research hotspots). We outlined LDN
assessment indicators, which can help the researchers further enrich the
LDN indicators based on the local degradation situation. Moreover, we
clarified the analysis methods of LDN driver factors and predicting LDN.
Then the researchers could quantify the contribution of the driving
factors to LDN by using machine learning, residual analysis, multiple
linear regression, and geographically weighted regression and predict
LDN by predicting productivity and land cover. LDN is a dynamic bal­
ance between land degradation and restoration, and there are trade-offs
and synergies between LDN and other SDGs. Synergies were identified
with most SDGs, and trade-offs were mainly identified with SDG 2 and
11, since they may restrict food production and economic development.
We should aim to increase the area of restored land, reduce the area of
degraded land to achieve LDN, and reduce the trade-offs between LDN
and other SDGs in the future.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation of
China (grant no. 41991232) and the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities of China.
References
Adeel, Z., Safriel, U., Niemeijer, D., White, R., 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:
desertification synthesis. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, World Resources
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Akhtar-Schuster, M., Stringer, L.C., Erlewein, A., Metternicht, G., Minelli, S., Safriel, U.,
Sommer, S., 2017. Unpacking the concept of land degradation neutrality and
addressing its operation through the Rio Conventions. J Environ Manage 195, 4–15.
Al Sayah, M.J., Abdallah, C., Sarkissian, R.D., Abboud, M., 2021. A framework for
investigating the land degradation neutrality-Disaster risk reduction nexus at the
sub-national scales. J Arid Environ 195, 104635.
Allen, C., Metternicht, G., Verburg, P., Akhtar-Schuster, M., da Cunha, M.I.,
Santivañez, M.S., 2020. Delivering an enabling environment and multiple benefits
for land degradation neutrality: Stakeholder perceptions and progress. Environ Sci
Policy 114, 109–118.
Bobushev, T.S., Sultanaliev, K.E., 2020. Evaluation and Adaptation of the Land
Degradtion Neutrality Approach to Land Classification Resources in the Kyrgyz
Republic. Arid Ecosyst 10, 123–126.
Bryan, B.A., Gao, L., Ye, Y.Q., Sun, X.F., Connor, J.D., Crossman, N.D., Stafford-
Smith, M., Wu, J.G., He, C.Y., Yu, D.Y., Liu, Z.F., Li, A., Huang, Q.X., Ren, H.,
Deng, X.Z., Zheng, H., Niu, J.M., Han, G.D., Hou, X.Y., 2018. China’s response to a
national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature 559 (7713), 193–204.
Burrell, A.L., Evans, J.P., Liu, Y., 2017. Detecting dryland degradation using Time Series
Segmentation and Residual Trend analysis (TSS-RESTREND). Remote Sens Environ
197, 43–57.
Chappell, A., Webb, N.P., Leys, J.F., Waters, C.M., Orgill, S., Eyres, M.J., 2019.
Minimising soil organic carbon erosion by wind is critical for land degradation
neutrality. Environ Sci Policy 93, 43–52.
Chen, G.Z., Li, X., Liu, X.P., Chen, Y.M., Liang, X., Leng, J.Y., Xu, X.C., Liao, W.L., Qiu, Y.
A., Wu, Q.L., Huang, K.N., 2020. Global projections of future urban land expansion
under shared socioeconomic pathways. Nat Commun 11 (1), 1–12.
Chen, C., Park, T., Wang, X.H., Piao, S.L., Xu, B.D., Chaturvedi, R.K., Fuchs, R.,
Brovkin, V., Ciais, P., Fensholt, R., Tommervik, H., Bala, G., Zhu, Z.C., Nemani, R.R.,
Myneni, R.B., 2019. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use
management. Nat Sustain 2 (2), 122–129.
Chidozie, E., Ogechi, O., Chukwurah, M., Raza, T., Qadir, M.F., Chibuikem, U.O.,
Adaobi, O., Winifred, I., 2021. Estimating land degradation neutrality (LDN) using
6
Ecological Indicators 144 (2022) 109530
carbon sequestration pedotransfer function on dissimilar land use and land cover in
humid tropics. Soil Envron 40 (2), 102–109.
Clewella, A., Aronson, J., Winterhalder, K., 2004. The SER international primer on
ecological restoration. https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/littonc/PDFs/682_SERPrimer.
pdf [Accessed April 12, 2022].
Cowie, A.L., Orr, B.J., Sanchez, V.M.C., Chasek, P., Crossman, N.D., Erlewein, A.,
Louwagie, G., Maron, M., Metternicht, G.I., Minelli, S.J.E.S., Policy,, 2018. Land in
balance: The scientific conceptual framework for Land Degradation Neutrality.
Environ Sci Policy 79, 25–35.
Crossland, M., Winowiecki, L.A., Pagella, T., Hadgu, K., Sinclair, F., 2018. Implications of
variation in local perception of degradation and restoration processes for
implementing land degradation neutrality. Environ Dev 28, 42–54.
Desa, U. 2016. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
https://stg-wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/11125/
unepswiosm1inf7sdg.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed April 12, 2022].
Ding, Z., Peng, J., Qiu, S., Zhao, Y., 2020. Nearly Half of Global Vegetated Area
Experienced Inconsistent Vegetation Growth in Terms of Greenness, Cover, and
Productivity. Earths. Future 8 (10) e2020EF001618.
Donohue, R.J., Roderick, M.L., McVicar, T.R., Farquhar, G.D., 2013. Impact of CO2
fertilisation on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments.
Geophys Res Lett 40 (12), 3031–3035.
Feng, S., Fu, Q., 2013. Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate. Atmos
Chem Phys 13 (19), 10081–10094.
Feng, S., Liu, X., Zhao, W., Yao, Y., Zhou, A., Liu, X., Pereira, P., 2022. Key Areas of
Ecological Restoration in Inner Mongolia Based on Ecosystem Vulnerability and
Ecosystem Service. Remote Sensing 14 (12), 2729.
Garcia, C.L., Teich, I., Gonzalez-Roglich, M., Kindgard, A.F., Ravelo, A.C., Liniger, H.,
2019. Land degradation assessment in the Argentinean Puna: Comparing expert
knowledge with satellite-derived information. Environ Sci Policy 91, 70–80.
Gassner, A., Harris, D., Mausch, K., Terheggen, A., Lopes, C., Finlayson, R.F., Dobie, P.,
2019. Poverty eradication and food security through agriculture in Africa:
Rethinking objectives and entry points. Outlook Agr 48 (4), 309–315.
Gichenje, H., Godinho, S., 2018. Establishing a land degradation neutrality national
baseline through trend analysis of GIMMS NDVI Time-series. Land Degrad Dev 29
(9), 2985–2997.
Gichenje, H., Munoz-Rojas, J., Pinto-Correia, T., 2019a. Opportunities and Limitations
for Achieving Land Degradation-Neutrality through the Current Land-Use Policy
Framework in Kenya. Land 8 (8), 115.
Gichenje, H., Pinto-Correia, T., Godinho, S., 2019b. An analysis of the drivers that affect
greening and browning trends in the context of pursuing land degradation-
neutrality. Remote Sens Appl 15, 100251.
Giger, M., Liniger, H., Sauter, C., Schwilch, G., 2018. Economic Benefits and Costs of
Sustainable Land Management Technologies: An Analysis of Wocat’s Global Data.
Land Degrad Dev 29 (4), 962–974.
Gomes, E., Inácio, M., Bogdzevič, K., Kalinauskas, M., Karnauskaitė, D., Pereira, P., 2021.
Future land-use changes and its impacts on terrestrial ecosystem services: A review.
Sci Total Environ 781, 146716.
Guo, B., Zhang, J., Meng, X., Xu, T., Song, Y., 2020. Long-term spatio-temporal
precipitation variations in China with precipitation surface interpolated by
ANUSPLIN. Sci Rep 10 (1), 81.
Han, W., Liu, G., Su, X., Wu, X., Chen, L., 2019. Assessment of potential land degradation
and recommendations for management in the south subtropical region. Southwest
China. Land Degradation & Development 30 (8), 979–990.
Huang, J.P., Yu, H.P., Guan, X.D., Wang, G.Y., Guo, R.X., 2016. Accelerated dryland
expansion under climate change. Nat Clim Change 6 (2), 166–171.
Jiang, L.L., Jiapaer, G., Bao, A., Li, Y.M., Guo, H., Zheng, G.X., Chen, T., De Maeyer, P.,
2019. Assessing land degradation and quantifying its drivers in the Amudarya River
delta. Ecol Indic 107, 105595.
Jiang, L.L., Bao, A.M., Jiapaer, G., Liu, R., Yuan, Y., Yu, T., 2022. Monitoring land
degradation and assessing its drivers to support sustainable development goal 15.3
in Central Asia. Sci Total Environ 807, 150868.
Jiang, C., Zhang, H.Y., Zhao, L.L., Yang, Z.Y., Wang, X.C., Yang, L., Wen, M.L., Geng, S.
B., Zeng, Q., Wang, J., 2020. Unfolding the effectiveness of ecological restoration
programs in combating land degradation: Achievements, causes, and implications.
Sci Total Environ 748, 141552.
Koutroulis, A.G., 2019. Dryland changes under different levels of global warming. Sci
Total Environ 655, 482–511.
Kuderina, T.M., Suslova, S.B., Lunin, V.N., Kudikov, A.V., 2020. Atmospheric Moisture as
a Factor of Land Degradation Neutrality in Forest-Steppe Landscapes. Arid Ecosyst
10 (2), 156–160.
Kussul, N., Kolotii, A., Shelestov, A., Yailymov, B., Lavreniuk, M., 2017. Land
Degradation Estimation from Global and National Satellite based Datasets within UN
Program. Proceedings of the 2017 9th Ieee International Conference on Intelligent
Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications
(Idaacs), Vol 1, 383-386.
Kust, G., Andreeva, O., Lobkovskiy, V., Telnova, N., 2018. Uncertainties and policy
challenges in implementing Land Degradation Neutrality in Russia. Environ Sci
Policy 89, 348–356.
Kust, G.S., Andreeva, O.V., Lobkovskiy, V.A., 2020. Land Degradation Neutrality: the
Modern Approach to Research on Arid Regions at the National Level. Arid Ecosyst 10
(2), 87–92.
Kust, G., Andreeva, O., Lobkovskiy, V., Annagylyjova, J., 2022. Experience in Developing
Land Degradation Neutrality Concept in the Russian Federation. Authorea Preprints.
Lal, R., Bouma, J., Brevik, E., Dawson, L., Field, D.J., Glaser, B., Hatano, R.,
Hartemink, A.E., Kosaki, T., Lascelles, B., Monger, C., Muggler, C., Ndzana, G.M.,
Norra, S., Pan, X.C., Paradelo, R., Reyes-Sanchez, L.B., Sanden, T., Singh, B.R.,
S. Feng et al.
Spiegel, H., Yanai, J., Zhang, J.B., 2021. Soils and sustainable development goals of
the United Nations: An International Union of Soil Sciences perspective. Geoderma
Reg 25, e00398.
LAw, E.P.A., 1994. Elaboration of an international convention to combat desertification
in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in
Africa. Environmental Policy and Law 24, 1.
Li, C.J., Fu, B.J., Wang, S., Stringer, L.C., Wang, Y.P., Li, Z.D., Liu, Y.X., Zhou, W.X.,
2021a. Drivers and impacts of changes in China’s drylands. Nature Reviews Earth &
Environment 2 (12), 858–873.
Li, X.S., Lu, Q., Jia, X.X., 2021b. Harnessing Big Earth Data to Facilitate Land
Degradation Neutrality Goals—Practices and Prospects. Bulletin of the Chinese
Academy of Sciences 36, 896–903.
Liao, W.L., Liu, X.P., Xu, X.Y., Chen, G.Z., Liang, X., Zhang, H.H., Li, X., 2020. Projections
of land use changes under the plant functional type classification in different SSP-
RCP scenarios in China. Sci Bull 65 (22), 1935–1947.
Liniger, H., Harari, N., van Lynden, G., Fleiner, R., de Leeuw, J., Bai, Z.G., Critchley, W.,
2019. Achieving land degradation neutrality: The role of SLM knowledge in
evidence-based decision-making. Environ Sci Policy 94, 123–134.
Mao, D., Wang, Z., Wu, B., Zeng, Y., Luo, L., Zhang, B., 2018. Land degradation and
restoration in the arid and semiarid zones of China: Quantified evidence and
implications from satellites. Land Degradation & Development 29 (11), 3841–3851.
Mitri, G., Nasrallah, G., Gebrael, K., Nassar, M.B., Abou Dagher, M., Nader, M., Masri, N.,
Choueiter, D., 2019. Assessing land degradation and identifying potential
sustainable land management practices at the subnational level in Lebanon. Environ
Monit Assess 191 (9), 1–22.
Moonrut, N., Takrattanasaran, N., Khamkajorn, T., Chaikaew, P., 2021. Integrated
remote sensing and GIS approaches for land degradation neutrality (LDN)
assessment in the agricultural area. 2nd International Conference on Advances in Civil
and Ecological Engineering Research 626(1), 012025.
Nkonya, E., Anderson, W., Kato, E., Koo, J., Mirzabaev, A., von Braun, J., Meyer, S.,
2016. Global cost of land degradation. In: Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., von Braun, J.
(Eds.), Economics of LAnd DegrAdAtion And Improvement – A GlobAl Assessment
for SustAinAble Development, 1nd ed. Springer, Cham, pp. 117–165.
Nzuza, P., Ramoelo, A., Odindi, J., Kahinda, J.M.M., Lindeque, L., 2021. A triangulation
approach for assessing and mapping land degradation in the Lepellane catchment of
the greater Sekhukhune District. South Africa. S Afr Geogr J 1–25.
Orr, B.J., Cowie, A.L., Castillo Sanchez, V.M., Chasek, P., Crossman, N.D., Erlewein, A.,
Louwagie, G., Maron, M., Metternicht, G.I., Minelli, S., Tengberg, A.E., Walter, S.,
Welton, S., 2017. Scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality.
A Report of the Science-Policy InterfAce. United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany.
Pereira, P., 2020a. Ecosystem services in a changing environment. Sci Total Environ 702,
135008.
Pereira, P., Bogunovic, I., Munoz-Rojas, M., Brevik, E., 2018. Soil ecosystem services,
sustainability, valuation and management. Current Opinion in Environmental
Science and Health 5, 7–13.
Pereira, P., Barcelo, D., Panagos, P., 2020b. Soil and water threats in a changing
environment. Environ Res 186, 109501.
Piao, S.L., Wang, X.H., Park, T., Chen, C., Lian, X., He, Y., Bjerke, J.W., Chen, A.P.,
Ciais, P., Tommervik, H., Nemani, R.R., Myneni, R.B., 2020. Characteristics, drivers
and feedbacks of global greening. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1 (1),
14–27.
Ptichnikov, A.V., Martynyuk, A.A., 2020. Adaptation of International Indicators of Land
Degradation Neutrality for the Assessment of Forest Ecosystems in Arid Conditions in
Russia. Arid Ecosyst 10 (2), 127–134.
Rabehi, W., Bentekhici, N., Bouhlala, M.A., Benharrats, F., Zegrar, A., Rahli, H.S., Karoui,
M.S., Benhamouda, F., 2020. Monitoring and Estimation of the Sustainable
Development Goal -Fifteen- by Remote Sensing Tools, Assessment of Change in Land
Cover (Sub-Indicator 15.3.1), Case of Algeria. 2020 Mediterranean and Middle-East
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (M2garss), 239-241.
Ren, Y.J., Lu, Y.H., Fu, B.J., Comber, A., Li, T., Hu, J., 2020. Driving Factors of Land
Change in China’s Loess Plateau: Quantification Using Geographically Weighted
Regression and Management Implications. Remote Sens 12 (3), 453.
Ricke, K.L., Moreno-Cruz, J.B., Schewe, J., Levermann, A., Caldeira, K., 2016. Policy
thresholds in mitigation. Nat Geosci 9 (1), 4–6.
Safriel, U., 2018. Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) in drylands and beyond–where has
it come from and where does it go. Silva Fennica 51 (1B), 20–24.
Schulze, K., Malek, Z., Verburg, P.H., 2021. How will land degradation neutrality change
future land system patterns? A scenario simulation study. Environ Sci Policy 124,
254–266.
Sciortino, M., De Felice, M., De Cecco, L., Borfecchia, F., 2020. Remote sensing for
monitoring and mapping Land Productivity in Italy: A rapid assessment
methodology. Catena 188, 104375.
Sietz, D., Fleskens, L., Stringer, L.C., 2017. Learning from NonLinear Ecosystem
Dynamics Is Vital for Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality. Land Degrad Dev 28
(7), 2308–2314.
Song, X.P., Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Tyukavina, A., Vermote, E.F.,
Townshend, J.R., 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560 (7720),
639–643.
Ecological Indicators 144 (2022) 109530
Song, C., Kim, W., Kim, J., Gebru, B.M., Adane, G.B., Choi, Y.E., Lee, W.K., 2021. Spatial
assessment of land degradation using MEDALUS focusing on potential afforestation
and reforestation areas in Ethiopia. Land Degrad Dev 33 (1), 79–93.
Speranza, C.I., Adenle, A., Boillat, S., 2019. Land Degradation Neutrality-Potentials for
its operationalisation at multi-levels in Nigeria. Environ Sci Policy 94, 63–71.
Stavi, I., Lal, R., 2015. Achieving Zero Net Land Degradation: Challenges and
opportunities. J Arid Environ 112, 44–51.
Suding, K.N., Hobbs, R.J., 2009. Threshold models in restoration and conservation: a
developing framework. Trends Ecol Evol 24 (5), 271–279.
Tong, X.W., Brandt, M., Yue, Y.M., Horion, S., Wang, K.L., De Keersmaecker, W., Tian, F.,
Schurgers, G., Xiao, X.M., Luo, Y.Q., Chen, C., Myneni, R., Shi, Z., Chen, H.S.,
Fensholt, R., 2018. Increased vegetation growth and carbon stock in China karst via
ecological engineering. Nat Sustain 1 (1), 44–50.
Tsymbarovich, P., Kust, G., Kumani, M., Golosov, V., Andreeva, O., 2020. Soil erosion:
An important indicator for the assessment of land degradation neutrality in Russia.
Int Soil Water Conse 8 (4), 418–429.
UNCCD. (2017). China final national report of the voluntary land degradation neutrality
(LDN) target setting programme. Assessed from: https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/
default/files/ldn_targets/China_LDN%20TSP%20Country%20Report.pdfCha, S.,
Kim, C.B., Kim, J., Lee, A.L., Park, K.H., Koo, N., Kim, Y.S., 2020. Land-use changes
and practical application of the land degradation neutrality (LDN) indicators: a case
study in the subalpine forest ecosystems, Republic of Korea. For Sci Technol 16(1), 8-
17.
Veldkamp, T.I.E., Wada, Y., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Doll, P., Gosling, S.N., Liu, J., Masaki, Y.,
Oki, T., Ostberg, S., Pokhrel, Y., Satoh, Y., Kim, H., Ward, P.J., 2017. Water scarcity
hotspots travel downstream due to human interventions in the 20th and 21st
century. Nat Commun 8 (1), 1–12.
Viana, C.M., Freire, D., Abrantes, P., Rocha, J., Pereira, P., 2022. Agricultural land
systems importance for supporting food security and sustainable development goals:
A systematic review. Sci Total Environ 806, 150718.
Von Maltitz, G.P., Gambiza, J., Kellner, K., Rambau, T., Lindeque, L., Kgope, B., 2019.
Experiences from the South African land degradation neutrality target setting
process. Environ Sci Policy 101, 54–62.
Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., Schewe, J., 2014. The
Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP): Project framework.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111
(9), 3228–3232.
Wuepper, D., Borrelli, P., Panagos, P., Lauber, T., Crowther, T., Thomas, A., Robinson, D.
A., 2021. A ’debt’ based approach to land degradation as an indicator of global
change. Global Change Biol 27 (21), 5407–5410.
Wunder, S., Bodle, R., 2019. Achieving land degradation neutrality in Germany:
Implementation process and design of a land use change based indicator. Environ Sci
Policy 92, 46–55.
Xu, D.Y., Kang, X.W., Zhuang, D.F., Pan, J.J., 2010. Multi-scale quantitative assessment
of the relative roles of climate change and human activities in desertification – A
case study of the Ordos Plateau. China. J Arid Environ 74 (4), 498–507.
Xu, D.Y., Zhang, X.Y., 2021. Multi-scenario simulation of desertification in North China
for 2030. Land Degrad Dev 32 (2), 1060–1074.
Yailymov, B.Y., Lavreniuk, M.S., Shelestov, A.Y., Kolotii, A.V., Yailymova, H.O.,
Fedorov, O.P., 2018. Methods of Essential Variables Determination for the Earth’s
Surface State Assessing. Space Sci Technol 24 (4), 24–37.
Yuan, S., Chen, J.H., Lu, Q., 2020. Conceptual Framework of Land Degradation
Neutrality and Its Implications for China’s Practice. World Forestry Research 33,
7–12.
Yuan, S., Cheng, L.L., Xu, J., Lu, Q., 2022. Evaluation of Land Degradation Neutrality in
Inner Mongolia Combined with Ecosystem Services. Land 11 (7), 971.
Zhang, D.J., Jia, Q.Q., Xu, X., Yao, S.B., Chen, H.B., Hou, X.H., 2018. Contribution of
ecological policies to vegetation restoration: A case study from Wuqi County in
Shaanxi Province, China. Land Use Policy 73, 400–411.
Zhang, H., Jiang, C., Wang, Y., Wang, J., Li, C., Yang, Z., Yang, C., 2022. Improving the
integrated efficacy of ecosystem restoration efforts by linking land degradation
neutrality to ecosystem service enhancement from a spatial association perspective.
Ecological Engineering 181, 106693.
Zhang, K., Yu, Z., Li, X., Zhou, W., Zhang, D., 2007. Land use change and land
degradation in China from 1991 to 2001. Land Degradation & Development 18 (2),
209–219.
Zhao, M., Geruo, A., Zhang, J.E., Velicogna, I., Liang, C.Z., Li, Z.Y., 2021a. Ecological
restoration impact on total terrestrial water storage. Nat Sustain 4 (1), 56–U85.
Zhao, W., Hua, T., Meadows, M.E., Pereira, P., 2021b. Degradation debts accounting: A
holistic approach towards land degradation neutrality. Global Change Biology 27
(21), 5411–5413.
Zhu, Z.C., Piao, S.L., Myneni, R.B., Huang, M.T., Zeng, Z.Z., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P.,
Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P., Arneth, A., Cao, C.X., Cheng, L., Kato, E., Koven, C.,
Li, Y., Lian, X., Liu, Y.W., Liu, R.G., Mao, J.F., Pan, Y.Z., Peng, S.S., Penuelas, J.,
Poulter, B., Pugh, T.A.M., Stocker, B.D., Viovy, N., Wang, X.H., Wang, Y.P., Xiao, Z.
Q., Yang, H., Zaehle, S., Zeng, N., 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat
Clim Change 6 (8), 791–795.