Harvested quinoa in South America.

Source: Reynolds, J.

Stockholm
Moscow
Berlin

Rome Istanbul
Beijing
Seoul
Tokyo
Tehran
Lahore Asia
(no year)21
Cairo

20.3
Shanghai 22

Karachi Delhi
Dhaka 16.5

11.1
Kolkata Hong Kong

10.5
% loss

11
11

10
Mumbai

6.6
Hyderabad
Bangkok Manila

4.6

4.5
5.5

3.2
4
3

3
Bangaluru

1
0

an

an

an

a
ta

ta

in

di
st

st

ist

Ch

In
zs

kis
kh

iki

en
gy

be
j
za

Ta

km
r

Uz
Ky
Ka
Kuala Lumpur

r
Tu
Africa (2015)
(Morocco 2008, Algeria/Egypt 2004)15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 loss of agricultural GDP by land degradation (as % of total agricultural GDP)
40
Nairobi loss of terrestrial ecosystem services value (ESV) by land degradation (in % of total estimated ESV)
30.9

30.1

Kinshasa 30
Jakarta
22.5

20.9
% loss

7.7

20
12.3

11.6
11

10
7
4.9

3.30
2.8
1.7

1.4

1.2

0
ca

ia

s o nin m
yp

ge

s G rie
c

pi

ny
er

ice sio ro
s)

oc
n ri

nl g
o
Eg

Ni
e

(a unt
Ke
Af

rv vi P f
hi
tri

or

y)
Al

Et
M

se pro D
co
u
co

an

Johannesburg
2
(4

r
ha
Sa
b-
Su

All graphs represent results

loss of agricultural GDPofbysome of the methods
land degradation mentioned
(as % of total agricultural here
GDP) below:
Perth
Cape - the econometric model outputs are expressed as a percentage of the agricultural GDP;
Town lossthe
- results from of terrestrial
ecosystem ecosystem services
services value (ESV) are
approach by land degradationas
expressed (in the
% of percentage
total estimated ESV)
of
reduction in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Services Value (ESV).
Background map: convergence of evidence in high density cropland (see page 148) and
shows where Global Land Issues (GCIs - page 145) coincide. Melbourne Auckland

Calculating the economics of land degradation

International organisations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Convention
to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), initiated programmes to investigate
and test different pragmatic approaches to estimate the costs of land
degradation. In 2005, the OECD highlighted the cost of inaction as a key
consideration for decision-making and resource allocation in combating
desertification and land degradation. In April 2013, the UNCCD held the
second Scientific Conference to analyse, discuss and build on experiences,
research and methodologies used in different contexts and places
worldwide. More recently, the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD)1
developed an holistic framework for the consideration of the economic
values of land in political decision-making processes and the benefits
derived from the sustainable management of land and soil on a global
and local scale.
Currently applied methods to estimate the cost of land degradation
illustrate the diversity of views and approaches:
i Replacement cost method, which counts the value of nutrients
needed to add to the land, in order to recover the lost fertility.
ii Methods based on the loss of net erosion and other associated
losses related to water and biodiversity.
iii Econometrical models, where the cost of land degradation is obtained
by calculating the difference in cultivation output between affected
and non-affected lands. These models calculate production and yield
functions of the most important crops in affected and non-affected
lands, as well as data from affected areas compared with optimal
economic frontiers of production. Value differences in crop produce
between non-degraded and degraded land drive the estimation of
economic loss of degradation.
iv Methods that consider the Total Economic Value (TEV) of land
estimate the economic loss by comparing the economic benefits
derived from adopting sustainable land-management practices with
the costs of these practices.
v The ecological economics approach2 , based on the estimated Total
Terrestrial Ecosystem Services value at global level and its degraded
fraction with results for all countries.
Hay stacks.
All methods depend heavily on the way degradation is approached and Well managed terraced fields on the Chinese Loess
measured, which explains the large range of estimates in economic plateau minimise the risk of degradation.
Source: Cherlet, M.
costs. As shown in WAD3, this should be viewed and estimated following
stakeholders’ interests which will likely yield a wide variety of spatial and
numerical results which are all valid and complementary, relecting very
different and local situations.

PART VI – SOLUTIONS | World Atlas of Desertification 235

Land Degradation Neutrality

A scientific conceptual framework

The objectives of LDN are to:

• Maintain or improve ecosystem services;
• Maintain or improve productivity, in order to enhance food security;
• Increase resilience of the land and populations dependent on the land;
• Seek synergies with other environmental objectives;
Oslo
• Reinforce responsible governance of land tenure.
London
Paris

Chicago
Lisbon Madrid
New York

Introduction Los
Angeles
Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) is the new
paradigm, introduced to halt the ongoing loss of healthy land as a
result of unsustainable management and land conversion. Defined
as “a state whereby the amount and quality of land resources
necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance Mexico
City
food security remain stable or increase within specified temporal
and spatial scales and ecosystems”1 , the goal of LDN is to maintain
the land resource base so that it can continue to supply ecosystem Dakar
services while enhancing the resilience of the communities that
depend on the land.
While the scope of the United Nations Convention to Combat Lagos
Desertification (UNCCD) is limited to drylands, the LDN conceptual Bogota
framework is intended to be applicable across all land types, so it
can be used by countries according to their individual circumstances.
The LDN conceptual framework is designed to apply to all land uses
(i.e. land managed for production – e.g. agriculture, forestry, for
conservation – e.g. protected areas and also land occupied by human
settlements and infrastructure) and all types of land degradation. Lima
To achieve LDN countries will need to assess the cumulative
effect of land use decisions and then undertake measures to restore
degraded land so as to compensate anticipated losses – what
the policy refers to as a counterbalance. Linking LDN objectives Rio de Janeiro
with existing land-use planning mechanisms will facilitate the
São Paulo
implementation of LDN. Countries should consider the social,
economic as well as environmental outcomes of alternative
options when planning LDN measures and should engage relevant
stakeholders.
Buenos Aires
Overview of the conceptual framework
The Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation
Neutrality2 provides a scientific foundation for planning,
implementing and monitoring LDN. It was developed by a group
of experts led by the Science-Policy Interface (SPI) of the UNCCD
and has been reviewed by technical experts and policymakers. By
Like-for-like
defining the LDN concept in operational terms, the framework is Counterbalancing ideally should not occur between different land types, to
designed to create a bridge between the vision and its practical ensure “like for like”, when assessing and managing the counterbalancing
implementation. It articulates the scientific basis for the vision between losses and gains. In other words, a gain in one land type cannot
and logic of LDN and, based on this, presents a strategy for counterbalance a loss in a different land type. Counterbalancing losses in
achieving LDN, an approach to monitoring LDN status and land types managed for conservation with gains in land types managed
guidance on interpreting the results of monitoring. for production should be avoided.
LDN activities should seek to deliver ‘win-win’ outcomes, whereby land
Integrated land use planning and the counterbalancing restoration and rehabilitation contribute to broader environmental goals
mechanism and more sustainable livelihoods.
Achieving LDN will require monitoring land use where Avoid:
degradation is anticipated (so that cumulative negative impacts Avoid Land degradation can be avoided by addressing
Maximise conservation of natural capital

drivers of degradation and through proactive

can be estimated), followed by interventions designed to
avoid, reduce or reverse land degradation, with the intent of
1 measures to prevent adverse change in land
quality of non-degraded land and confer
resilience, via appropriate regulation, planning
and management practices.
achieving neutrality at national scales. Therefore, the conceptual
Reduce Reduce:
framework introduces a new approach in which land-degradation Land degradation can be reduced or mitigated on
management is coupled with land-use planning. Decision-makers 2 agricultural and forest land through application
of sustainable management practices
are encouraged to consider the cumulative effects on the health (sustainable land management, sustainable
forest management).
and productivity of a nation’s land resources caused by the
Reverse
collective impact of their individual decisions. LDN thus promotes Reverse:

integrated land use planning, with a long-term planning horizon
including consideration of the likely impacts of climate change.
The counterbalancing mechanism requires implementation of
interventions that will deliver gains in land-based natural capital
equal to or greater than anticipated losses due to degradation
elsewhere.
3 Where feasible, some (but rarely all) of the
productive potential and ecological services of
degraded land can be restored or rehabilitated
through actively assisting the recovery of
ecosystem functions.
The LDN response hierarchy encourages broad adoption of measures
Schematic of the scientific conceptual framework for land to avoid and reduce land degradation, combined with localised action
degradation neutrality. Envisaged new land degradation needs to be to reverse degradation, to achieve LDN across each land type. It
counterbalanced by restoring already degraded land so that on balance acknowledges that preventing degradation is typically easier and more
the area degraded remains the same or decreases. This is done per cost effective than reversing degradation.
land type on a like-for-like basis. Source: Orr B., 20172 .
Source: Orr B., 20172 .

236 World Atlas of Desertification | PART VI – SOLUTIONS

 The principles for governing LDN:
1. Maintain or enhance land-based natural capital.
2. Protect the rights of land users.
3. Respect national sovereignty.
4. For neutrality, the LDN target equals (is the same as) the baseline.
5. Neutrality is the minimum objective: countries may elect to set a
more ambitious target.
Stockholm 6. Integrate planning and implementation of LDN into existing land-
Moscow use planning processes.

Berlin 7. Counterbalance anticipated losses in land-based natural capital

with interventions to reverse degradation, to achieve neutrality.
8. Manage counterbalancing at the same scale as land-use planning.
9. Counterbalance “like for like” (within the same land type).
Rome Istanbul 10. Balance economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Beijing
Seoul 11. Base land-use decisions on multi-variable assessments,
Tokyo considering land potential, land condition, resilience, social, cultural
Tehran and economic factors.
Lahore
Cairo Shanghai
12. Apply the response hierarchy in devising interventions for LDN:
Avoid > Reduce > Reverse land degradation.
Karachi Delhi
Dhaka 13. Apply a participatory process: include stakeholders, especially land
users, in designing, implementing and monitoring interventions to
Kolkata Hong Kong
achieve LDN.
Mumbai 14. Reinforce responsible governance: protect human rights,
Hyderabad
Bangkok Manila including tenure rights; develop a review mechanism; and ensure
Bangaluru accountability and transparency.
15. Monitor using the three UNCCD land-based global indicators: land
cover, land productivity and carbon stocks.
Kuala Lumpur 16. Use additional national and sub-national indicators to aid
interpretation and to fill gaps for ecosystem services not covered
Nairobi
by the three global indicators.
Kinshasa 17. Use the “one-out, all-out” approach to interpret the result of these
Jakarta
three global indicators.
18. Apply local knowledge and data to validate and interpret monitoring data.
19. Apply a continuous learning approach: anticipate, plan, track,
interpret, review, adjust, create the next plan.

Johannesburg

Perth
Cape
Town UNCCD Parties
Participating countries to the LDN process Melbourne Auckland

As of March 2018, 116 countries have committed to setting LDN targets.

Source: www2.UNCCD.int

Disclaimer: Country names or borders shown on the map do not necessarily represent the
UNCCD's official position. The map show is simply for display purposes. It does not work to imply
views or opinion of the UNCCD, regarding the legal status of any territory or country.

Monitoring LDN LDN can help achieve multiple global development and
environmental goals
Monitoring LDN achievement of neutrality Achieving LDN can have major benefits for both society and
Land will quantify the balance between the area the environment. The Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG
Degradation LDN of gains (significant positive changes in 15) "Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial
Neutrality LDN indicators=improvements) and area ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification,
of losses (significant negative changes and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss"
Suite of in LDN indicators=degradation), within includes the specific target (15.3) to "combat desertification,
Derived from % Area
measured Derived from RS and ground (per land cover As relevant to each land type across the landscape. The restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by
NDVI/EVI indicator As relevant
measures class)
values LDN indicators specify what to measure, desertification, drought and floods and strive to achieve a land
while the metrics state how each of the degradation-neutral world”. Achieving this goal will be a catalyst
indicators is assessed. Indicators for to many other SDG goals relating to poverty, hunger, water, fuel
Land Carbon Land Cover As Relevant
Derived Productivity Stocks (SOC) (Land Cover appropriate indicators/ LDN were selected to reflect the land- and climate. LDN, however, also cuts across all three of the Rio
Indicators (NPP) and other relevant Change) from other SDGs or metrics based ecosystem services the LDN seeks conventions, as in addition to its obvious links to the Convention
and other relevant indicators/ metrics and other relevant national indicators
(metrics) to support. The relationship between
indicators/ metrics indicators/ metrics to Combat Desertification, it will also help maintain biodiversity as
ecosystem services, indicators and metrics well as reduce the rate of climate change through the sequestering
is illustrated in the figure adjacent. of carbon3 .
Land-based
Ecosystem Nutrient Water Cultural
Food supply cycling regulation heritage ... all other ESs
Services (ES)

Land-based Selection of indicators based on ecosystem

supporting services to be monitored.
Source: Orr B., 20172 .
process

PART VI – SOLUTIONS | World Atlas of Desertification 237

Appendices
The European Commission
Directorate for Sustainable Resources
The Directorate for Sustainable Resources (Directorate D)
aims to play a central role in creating, managing and making
sense of scientific knowledge for EU policies related to the
sustainable use of resources, encompassing environmental,
economic and social dimensions.
The Joint Research Centre The Directorate:
• focuses on land, soil, forests, water, marine resources, raw
The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission's
materials, biodiversity and related ecosystem services, and
science and knowledge service which employs scientists to carry
supports the development of a sustainable bioeconomy;
out research in order to provide independent scientific advice
and support to EU policy. As the Commission’s in-house science • monitors and analyses agriculture and food production,
service, the Joint Research Centre’s mission is to provide EU consumption and trade, including the macro- and micro-
policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical economic aspects, their impact on food security, public goods
support throughout the whole policy cycle. Its work has a direct and the environment;
impact on the lives of citizens by contributing with its research • highlights the threats to our existing resources and explores
outcomes to a healthy and safe environment, secure energy alternatives and future perspectives using advanced
supplies, sustainable mobility and consumer health and safety. biophysical and economic analyses, including geospatial
The JRC draws on over 50 years of scientific work experience technologies, modelling and supply-chain analyses.
and continually builds its expertise based on its seven scientific
Directorates, which host specialist laboratories and unique
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en
research facilities. They are located in Belgium (Brussels and
Geel), Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.
While most of our scientific work serves the policy The European Union
Directorates-General of the European Commission, we address
key societal challenges while stimulating innovation and The European Union (EU) is an economic and political association of
developing new methods, tools and standards. We share know- European countries with a combined population of over 500 million
how with the Member States, the scientific community and inhabitants (7.3 % of the world population) and an economy representing
international partners. The JRC collaborates with over a thousand approximately 20 % of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The EU has
organisations worldwide whose scientists have access to many evolved from the original six countries of the European Coal and Steel
JRC facilities through various collaboration agreements. Community (1951) and the European Economic Community (1958), to
28 Member States. The term ‘European Union’ was established under the
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/about
1993 Maastricht Treaty. The EU is represented at the United Nations, the
WTO, the G8 and the G20.
The EU operates through a system of supranational independent
institutions and intergovernmental negotiated decisions adopted by the
Member States. Important institutions of the EU include the European
Commission, the Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice of
the European Union, and the European Central Bank. The members of the
European Parliament are elected every five years by EU citisens.
http://ec.europa.eu/
JRC mission statement
JRC in brief
Independent scientific evidence for EU policies
• As the European Commission's science and knowledge service, the
Joint Research Centre (JRC) supports EU policies with independent
scientific evidence throughout the whole policy cycle.
• We create, manage and make sense of knowledge and develop
innovative tools and make them available to policy makers
• We anticipate emerging issues that need to be addressed at EU level
and understand policy environments
• We collaborate with over a thousand organisations worldwide
whose scientists have access to many JRC facilities through various
collaboration agreements.
• Our work has a direct impact on the lives of citizens by contributing
with its research outcomes to a healthy and safe environment, secure
energy supplies, sustainable mobility and consumer health and safety.
• We draw on over 50 years of scientific experience and continually build
our expertise in knowledge production and knowledge management.
• We host specialist laboratories and unique research facilities and is
home to thousands of scientists.
JRC value statement
"The JRC aims to operate to the highest standards of quality, efficiency
and integrity with respect to the society as a whole, to its customers
and to its own staff." Our work ranges from detecting and measuring
genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food and feed to developing
nuclear forensics technology for combating illicit trafficking of nuclear
material and to using satellite technologies for monitoring land use
and emergency situations such as forest fires and floods. Our activities
also involve the definition of food safety standards, research into new
energy technologies and evaluating policy options, for instance related
to climate change.

The European Commission

The Directorate for Sustainable Resources is located in Ispra, a
small town on the shore of Lake Maggiore in northern Italy. (JRC)
The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union
(EU) responsible for proposing legislation, verifying the implementation
of the decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the day-to-day
running of the EU.
The Commission acts as a cabinet government, with 28 Commission
members - one representative per Member State. The Commission is
composed of thirty-four Directorates-General.

Publications Office of the European Union

The EU Bookshop website (http://bookshop.europa.eu/) is
your single access point to publications from the European Union
institutions, agencies and other bodies, published by the Publications
Office. The EU Bookshop provides an overview of the publications’
contents through comprehensive bibliographic notices. You may
download publications in PDF format free of charge. If a publication
you are looking for is not available, you can use the ‘PDF on request’
function to be informed by e-mail as soon as the PDF is added to
the website.
You can also order a single copy of any free-of-charge
publication, provided it is in stock. As for priced publications, you
can place an order with the EU Bookshop through one of our sales
agents, or download the PDF file free of charge. Publications are
usually shipped within 48 hours of receipt of the order.
You can find publications through simple and advanced search
functions, browsing by thematic area or by author (e.g. European
Union institution). Furthermore, you may choose to sign up to ‘My
EU Bookshop’ and access personalised functions, for example, save
search queries for regular use, or be notified by e-mail about new
releases that interest you.
The Publications Office aims to make the EU Bookshop the
common entry point for European Union publications. Currently, the
Location of the directorates and headquarters of the JRC.
website is available in 22 languages.

238 World Atlas of Desertification | PART VII – Appendices

References
PART I
INTRODUCTION
(pp10-19)
[1] J. F. Reynolds, D. M. Stafford Smith,
Eds., in Global Desertification: Do
Humans Cause Deserts? (Dahlem
University Press, 2002), pp. 1–21.
[2] S. D. Prince, in The End of
Desertification? : Disputing
Environmental Change in the Drylands,
R. Behnke, M. Mortimore, Eds.
(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2016), pp. 225–263, DOI:
10.1007/978-3-642-16014-1_9.
[3] R. Behnke, M. Mortimore, Eds., The End
of Desertification? (Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016),
Springer Earth System Sciences, DOI:
10.1007/978-3-642-16014-1.
[4] C. Toulmin, Lessons from the Theatre:
Should this be the Final Curtain
Call for the Convention to Combat
Desertification? World Summit Sustain.
Dev. Brief. Pap. (2002), p. 2, available at
http://pubs.iied.org/11017IIED.
[5] A. Grainger, The role of science
in implementing international
environmental agreements: The case
of desertification. Land Degradation
& Development. 20, 410–430 (2009),
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.898.
[6] P. Chasek, U. Safriel, S. Shikongo, V. F.
Fuhrman, Operationalizing Zero Net
Land Degradation: The next stage
in international efforts to combat
desertification? Journal of Arid
Environments. 112, 5–13 (2015), DOI:
10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.05.020.
[7] N. J. Middleton, D. S. G. Thomas, Eds.,
World Atlas of Desertification, Second
Edition (United Nations Environment
Programme and Arnold, a member of
the Hodder Headline Group, London,
1997).
[8] L. R. Oldeman, Global Assessment of
Soil Degradation (GLASOD). Guidelines
for General Assessment of the Status
of Human-Induced Soil Degradation.
(International Soil Reference and
Information Center, Wageningen,
The Netherlands, 1988), available
at www.isric.org/sites/default/files/
isric_report_1988_04.pdf.
[9] L. R. Oldeman, R. T. A. Hakkeling, W. G.
Sombroek, World Map of the Status of
Human-Induced land Degradation: An
Explanatory Note (rev.ed.) (UNEP and
ISRIC, Wageningen, 1991), available at
http://www.isric.org/isric/webdocs/docs/
ExplanNote.pdf.
[10] B. G. J. S. Sonneveld, D. L. Dent,
How good is GLASOD? Journal of
Environmental Management. 90,
274–283 (2009), DOI: 10.1016/j.
jenvman.2007.09.008.
[11] E. F. Lambin et al., The causes of
land-use and land-cover change:
moving beyond the myths. Global
Environmental Change. 11, 261–269
(2001), DOI: 10.1016/S0959-
3780(01)00007-3.
[12] J. F. Reynolds, D. M. Stafford Smith,
Eds., Global Desertification: Do Humans
cause Deserts? (Dahlem University
Press, Berlin, 2002).
[13] Millenium Ecosystem Assessment,
Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Desertification Synthesis (World
Resources Institute, Washington,
DC., 2005), available at https://www.
millenniumassessment.org/documents/
document.355.aspx.pdf.
[14] H. F. Lamprey, Report on the desert
encroachment reconnaissance in
northern Sudan: 21 October to 10
November 1975. Desertification control
bulletin (1988).
[15] A. T. Grove, Desertification.
Progress in Physical Geography.
1, 296–310 (1977), DOI:
10.1177/030913337700100204.
[16] C. J. Tucker, W. W. Newcomb, S. O.
Los, S. D. Prince, Mean and inter-
year variation of growing-season
normalized difference vegetation
index for the Sahel 1981-1989.
International Journal of Remote
Sensing. 12, 1133–1135 (1991), DOI:
10.1080/01431169108929717.
[17] C. J. Tucker, H. E. Dregne, W. W.
Newcomb, Expansion and Contraction
of the Sahara Desert from 1980 to
1990. Science. 253, 299–300 (1991),
DOI: 10.1126/science.253.5017.299.
[18] P. J. Crutzen, Geology of mankind.
Nature. 415, 23–23 (2002), DOI:
10.1038/415023a.
[19] H. Haberl et al., Quantifying and
mapping the human appropriation
of net primary production in earth’s
terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. 104,
12942–12947 (2007), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.0704243104.
[20] M. L. Imhoff et al., Global patterns in
human consumption of net primary
production. Nature. 429, 870–873
(2004), DOI: 10.1038/nature02619.
[21] H. Steinfeld et al., Livestock’s Long
Shadow: Environmental Issues and
Options (FAO, Rome, Italy, 2006).
[22] A. Y. Hoekstra, T. O. Wiedmann,
Humanity’s unsustainable
environmental footprint. Science. 344,
1114–1117 (2014), DOI: 10.1126/
science.1248365.
[23] J. F. Reynolds et al., Global
desertification: Building a science for
dryland development. Science. 316, 847
(2007), DOI: 10.1126/science.1131634.
[24] E. C. Ellis, N. Ramankutty, Putting people
in the map: anthropogenic biomes of
the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment. 6, 439–447 (2008), DOI:
10.1890/070062.
[25] FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture
2009. Livestock in the balance (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, 2009), available
at http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i0680e/i0680e00.htm.
[26] T. R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle
of Population (Johnson. Reprinted,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993,
London, 1798).
[27] T. Garnett et al., Sustainable
Intensification in Agriculture: Premises
and Policies. Science. 341, 33–34
(2013), DOI: 10.1126/science.1234485.
[28] G. Kuehne et al., Predicting farmer
uptake of new agricultural practices:
A tool for research, extension and
policy. Agricultural Systems. 156,
115–125 (2017), DOI: 10.1016/j.
agsy.2017.06.007.
[29] World Commission on Environment and
Development, Brundtland Commission,
Our Common Future (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987).
[30] W. Steffen et al., Planetary boundaries:
Guiding human development on
a changing planet. Science. 347,
1259855–1259855 (2015), DOI:
10.1126/science.1259855.
[31] G. M. Mace, The Limits to Sustainability
Science: Ecological Constraints or
Endless Innovation? PLoS Biology.
10, e1001343 (2012), DOI: 10.1371/
journal.pbio.1001343.
[32] F. Krausmann et al., Global human
appropriation of net primary
production doubled in the 20th
century. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 110,
10324–10329 (2013), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1211349110.
[33] H. Haberl, Human Appropriation of Net
Primary Production as an Environmental
Indicator: Implications for Sustainable
Development. Ambio. 26, 143–146
(1997), available at www.jstor.org/
citation/info/10.2307/4314572.
[34] S. Orr, J. Pittock, A. Chapagain, D.
Dumaresq, Dams on the Mekong River:
Lost fish protein and the implications
for land and water resources.
Global Environmental Change. 22,
925–932 (2012), DOI: 10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2012.06.002.
[35] United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs -
Population Division, World Urbanization
Prospects: The 2014 Revision,
Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352) (2014).
[36] A. Warren, Land degradation is
contextual. Land Degradation &
Development. 13, 449–459 (2002),
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.532.
[37] M. Giger, H. Liniger, C. Sauter, G.
Schwilch, Economic Benefits and Costs
of Sustainable Land Management
Technologies: An Analysis of WOCAT’s
Global Data. Land Degradation &
Development (2015)DOI: 10.1002/
ldr.2429, DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2429.
[38] J. K. Berry, Fundamental operations
in computer-assisted map
analysis. International journal
of geographical information
systems. 1, 119–136 (1987), DOI:
10.1080/02693798708927799.
[39] H. R. Fischer, Abductive Reasoning as
a Way of Worldmaking. Foundations
of Science. 6, 361–383 (2001), DOI:
10.1023/A:1011671106610.
PART II
GLOBAL PATTERNS
OF HUMAN
DOMINATION
Night Lights (pp22-23)
[1] C. Elvidge et al., Satellite inventory of
human settlements using nocturnal
radiation emissions: a contribution for
the global toolchest. Global Change
Biology. 3, 387–395 (1997), DOI:
10.1046/j.1365-2486.1997.00115.x.
[2] M. Imhoff, Using nighttime DMSP/
OLS images of city lights to estimate
the impact of urban land use on
soil resources in the United States.
Remote Sensing of Environment. 59,
105–117 (1997), DOI: 10.1016/S0034-
4257(96)00110-1.
[3] M. L. Imhoff et al., Global patterns in
human consumption of net primary
production. Nature. 429, 870–873
(2004), DOI: 10.1038/nature02619.
[4] Y. Hautier et al., Anthropogenic
environmental changes affect
ecosystem stability via biodiversity.
Science. 348, 336–340 (2015), DOI:
10.1126/science.aaa1788.
[5] T. Ghosh, S. Anderson, C. Elvidge, P.
Sutton, Using Nighttime Satellite
Imagery as a Proxy Measure of
Human Well-Being. Sustainability. 5,
4988–5019 (2013), DOI: 10.3390/
su5124988.
Transportation and
Accessibility (pp24-25)
[1] H. J. Geist, E. F. Lambin, Dynamic Causal
Patterns of Desertification. BioScience.
54, 817 (2004), DOI: 10.1641/0006-
3568(2004)054 [0817:DCPOD]2.0.CO;2.
[2] H. Geist, The causes and progression
of desertification (Ashgate Publishing,
Ltd., 2005).
[3] P. Krugman, The New Economic
Geography, Now Middle-aged.
Regional Studies. 45, 1–7 (2011), DOI:
10.1080/00343404.2011.537127.
[4] World Bank, World Development
Report 2009: Reshaping Economic
Geography (World Bank. License:
CC BY 3.0 IGO, 2009), available at
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/5991.
[5] S. C. Trombulak, C. A. Frissell,
Review of Ecological Effects of
Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic
Communities. Conservation Biology. 14,
18–30 (2000), DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-
1739.2000.99084.x.
[6] D. Southgate, The Causes of Land
Degradation along “Spontaneously”
Expanding Agricultural Frontiers in the
Third World. Land Economics. 66, 93
(1990), DOI: 10.2307/3146686.
[7] R. Patarasuk, M. W. Binford,
Longitudinal analysis of the road
network development and land-cover
change in Lop Buri province, Thailand,
1989–2006. Applied Geography. 32,
228–239 (2012), DOI: 10.1016/j.
apgeog.2011.05.009.
[8] P. D. Richards, R. T. Walker, E. Y. Arima,
Spatially complex land change: The
Indirect effect of Brazil’s agricultural
sector on land use in Amazonia. Global
Environmental Change. 29, 1–9 (2014),
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.011.
[9] J. M. Ochoa-Quintero, T. A. Gardner,
I. Rosa, S. F. de Barros Ferraz, W. J.
Sutherland, Thresholds of species loss
in Amazonian deforestation frontier
landscapes. Conservation Biology.
29, 440–451 (2015), DOI: 10.1111/
cobi.12446.
[10] 10R. E. Lucas, Jr., Life Earnings and
Rural Urban Migration. Journal of
Political Economy. 112, S29–S59
(2004), DOI: 10.1086/379942.
[11] R. M. Buckley, P. Clarke Annez, M.
Spence, Eds., Urbanization and
Growth (The World Bank, 2008), DOI:
10.1596/978-0-8213-7573-0.
[12] A. de Brauw, V. Mueller, H. L. Lee, The
Role of Rural–Urban Migration in the
Structural Transformation of Sub-
Saharan Africa. World Development.
63, 33–42 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
worlddev.2013.10.013.
[13] P. Meyfroidt, E. F. Lambin, K.-H. Erb, T. W.
Hertel, Globalization of land use: distant
drivers of land change and geographic
displacement of land use. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.
5, 438–444 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
cosust.2013.04.003.
[14] D. J. Weiss et al., A global map of travel
time to cities to assess inequalities in
accessibility in 2015. Nature (2018),
DOI: 10.1038/nature25181.
[15] J. Chamberlin, T. S. Jayne, D.
Headey, Scarcity amidst abundance?
Reassessing the potential for cropland
expansion in Africa. Food Policy.
48, 51–65 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
foodpol.2014.05.002.
Population Distribution,
Trends and Projections /
Migration (pp26-29)
[1] M. Pesaresi, M. Melchiorri, A. Siragusa,
T. Kemper, Eds., Atlas of the human
planet 2016 (Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg, 2016),
DOI: 10.2788/889483.
[2] United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs Population
Division, World Population Prospects :
The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and
Advances (ESA/P/WP.241) (2015).
[3] U. Safriel et al., in Ecosystems and
Human Well-Being: Current State
and Trends., R. Hassan, R. Scholes, N.
Ash, Eds. (Island Press, Washington
D.C., 2005), The Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment Series, pp.
623–662, available at https://www.
millenniumassessment.org/documents/
document.291.aspx.pdf.
[4] P. Gerland et al., World population
stabilization unlikely this century.
Science. 346, 234–237 (2014), DOI:
10.1126/science.1257469.
[5] W. Steffen, J. Grinevald, P. Crutzen,
John McNeill, The Anthropocene:
conceptual and historical perspectives.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences. 369, 842–867
(2011), DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0327.
[6] J. Bongaarts, Development: Slow down
population growth. Nature. 530, 409–
412 (2016), DOI: 10.1038/530409a.
[7] GEO-6, Summary of the Sixth Global
Environment Outlook (GEO-6). Regional
Assessments: Key Findings and Policy
Messages (UNEP/EA.2/INF/17 United
Nations Environment Assembly of
the United Nations Environment
Programme, Second Session 23–27
May 2016, Nairobi, 2016), available at
hdl.handle.net/20.500.11822/7644.
[8] E. Albrecht, M. P. Plewa, International
recognition of environmental refugees.
Environmental Policy and Law. 45,
78–84 (2015), DOI: 10.3233/EPL-
45203.
[9] M. Al-Husban, C. Adams, Sustainable
Refugee Migration: A Rethink towards
a Positive Capability Approach.
Sustainability. 8, 451 (2016), DOI:
10.3390/su8050451.
[10] G. J. Abel, N. Sander, Quantifying Global
International Migration Flows. Science.
343, 1520–1522 (2014), DOI: 10.1126/
science.1248676.
[11] T. Esch et al., TanDEM-X mission—
new perspectives for the inventory
and monitoring of global settlement
patterns. Journal of Applied Remote
Sensing. 6, 61702–1 (2012), DOI:
10.1117/1.JRS.6.061702.
[12] T. Esch et al., Dimensioning
urbanization – An advanced procedure
for characterizing human settlement
properties and patterns using spatial
network analysis. Applied Geography.
55, 212–228 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
apgeog.2014.09.009.
The Urban Planet (pp30-31)
[1] United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs Population
Division, World Population Prospects:
The 2017 Revision, custom data
acquired via website (2017), available
at https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp
(Accessed: 27/11/2017).
[2] Center for International Earth Science
Information Network - CIESIN -
Columbia University, I. F. P. R. I. (IFPRI),
The World Bank, Centro Internacional
de Agricultura Tropical - (CIAT), Global
Rural-Urban Mapping Project, Version 1
(GRUMPv1): Urban Extents Grid (2011),
available at http://dx.doi.org/10.7927/
H4GH9FVG.
[3] United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs -
Population Division, UN DESA PD, World
Urbanization Prospects: The 2014
Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352)
(2014), available at https://esa.un.org/
unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-
highlights.pdf.
[4] R. Dobbs et al., Urban world: Cities
and the rise of the consuming class
(McKinsey Global Institute, New York
City, NY, 2012), available at https://
www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/
Global Themes/Urbanization/Urban
world Cities and the rise of the
consuming class/MGI_Urban_world_
Rise_of_the_consuming_class_Full_
report.ashx.
[5] K. R. Weiss, Vancouver’s Green Dream.
Science. 352, 918–921 (2016), DOI:
10.1126/science.352.6288.918.
[6] M. Chen, H. Zhang, W. Liu, W. Zhang,
The global pattern of urbanization
and economic growth: evidence from
the last three decades. Plos One. 9,
e103799 (2014), DOI: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0103799.
[7] Anonymous, Rise of the City. Science.
352, 906–907 (2016), DOI: 10.1126/
science.352.6288.906.
[8] N. B. Grimm et al., Global Change
and the Ecology of Cities. Science.
319, 756–760 (2008), DOI: 10.1126/
science.1150195.
[9] United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, Cities and Climate Change:
Global Report on Human Settlements
2011 (Earthscan, London, 2011),
available at https://unhabitat.org/books/
cities-and-climate-change-global-
report-on-human-settlements-2011.
[10] A. Givati, D. Rosenfeld, Quantifying
precipitation suppression due to
air pollution. Journal of Applied
Meteorology. 43, 1038–1056 (2004),
DOI: 10.1175/1520-0450(2004)
043<1038:QPSDTA>2.0.CO;2.
[11] L. Zhou et al., Evidence for a significant
urbanization effect on climate in China.
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. 101, 9540–9544 (2004),
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0400357101.
[12] L. M. A. Bettencourt, J. Lobo, D.
Helbing, C. Kuhnert, G. B. West, Growth,
innovation, scaling, and the pace
of life in cities. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 104,
7301–7306 (2007), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.0610172104.
[13] D. M. Kammen, D. A. Sunter, City-
integrated renewable energy for urban
sustainability. Science. 352, 922–928
(2016), DOI: 10.1126/science.aad9302.
[14] M. Acuto, S. Parnell, Leave no city
behind. Science. 352, 873–873 (2016),
DOI: 10.1126/science.aag1385.
[15] World Bank, Urban China: Toward
Efficient, Inclusive, and Sustainable
Urbanization (The World Bank,
Washington, DC:, 2014), DOI:
10.1596/978-1-4648-0206-5.
[16] G. U. Chaolin, W. U. Liya, I. Cook,
Progress in research on Chinese
urbanization. Frontiers of Architectural
Research. 1, 101–149 (2012), DOI:
10.1016/j.foar.2012.02.013.
[17] Jianguo Wu, Wei-Ning Xiang, Jingzhu
Zhao, Urban ecology in China: Historical
developments and future directions.
Landscape and Urban Planning. 125,
222–233 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2014.02.010.
PART VII – Appendices | World Atlas of Desertification
[18] The National Development and
Reform Commission of China,
Government Report: China’s
urbanization level reached 56.1%
(2016), available at http://english.
gov.cn/news/video/2016/04/20/
content_281475331447793.htm.
[19] Y. Lu et al., Addressing China’s grand
challenge of achieving food security
while ensuring environmental
sustainability. Science Advances. 1,
e1400039 (2015), DOI: 10.1126/
sciadv.1400039.
[20] X. Kong, China must protect high-
quality arable land. Nature. 506, 7–7
(2014), DOI: 10.1038/506007a.
[21] Q. Zhang, J. Wallace, X. Deng, K. C.
Seto, Central versus local states: Which
matters more in affecting China’s
urban growth? Land Use Policy. 38,
487–496 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
landusepol.2013.12.015.
Urban Clusters (pp32-33)
[1] M. Pesaresi, M. Melchiorri, A. Siragusa,
T. Kemper, Eds., Atlas of the human
planet 2016 (Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg, 2016),
DOI: 10.2788/889483.
[2] M. Pesaresi et al., A Global Human
Settlement Layer From Optical HR/VHR
RS Data: Concept and First Results.
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in
Applied Earth Observations and Remote
Sensing. 6, 2102–2131 (2013), DOI:
10.1109/JSTARS.2013.2271445
(Accessed: 1/3/2016).
[3] JRC, GHSL - Global Human Settlement
Layer (2016), available at http://ghsl.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/index.php.
[4] B. Güneralp, K. C. Seto, M.
Ramachandran, Evidence of urban
land teleconnections and impacts
on hinterlands. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability. 5,
445–451 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
cosust.2013.08.003.
[5] U. Safriel et al., in Ecosystems and
Human Well-Being: Current State
and Trends., R. Hassan, R. Scholes, N.
Ash, Eds. (Island Press, Washington
D.C., 2005), The Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment Series, pp.
623–662, available at https://www.
millenniumassessment.org/documents/
document.291.aspx.pdf.
[6] Global Urban Footprint, available at
www.dlr.de/eoc/en/desktopdefault.aspx/
tabid-9628/16557_read-40454.
Extent of Global Agriculture
(pp34-35)
[1] J. a. Foley et al., Solutions for a
cultivated planet. Nature. 478,
337–342 (2011), DOI: 10.1038/
nature10452.
[2] N. Ramankutty, J. a. Foley, Estimating
historical changes in global land cover:
Croplands from 1700 to 1992. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles. 13, 997–1027
(1999), DOI: 10.1029/1999GB900046.
[3] J. Latham, R. Cumani, I. Rosati, M.
Bloise, Global Land Cover SHARE (GLC-
SHARE) database Beta-Release Version
1.0 (2014), available at http://www.
glcn.org/databases/lc_glcshare_en.jsp
(Accessed: 14/8/2014).
[4] E. C. Ellis et al., Anthropogenic
transformation of the biomes,
1700 to 2000. Global Ecology
and Biogeography. 19, 589–606
(2010), DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-
8238.2010.00540.x.
[5] B. Stewart, P. Koohafkan, K.
Ramamoorthy, in Dryland Agriculture
(2nd Edition), G. Peterson, P. W. Unger,
W. A. Payne, Eds. (American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, Wis., ed. 2nd, 2006),
pp. 1–24.
[6] N. Zeng et al., Agricultural Green
Revolution as a driver of increasing
atmospheric CO2 seasonal amplitude.
Nature. 515, 394–397 (2014), DOI:
10.1038/nature13893 (Accessed:
26/1/2017).
[7] Millenium Ecosystem Assessment,
Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Desertification Synthesis (World
Resources Institute, Washington,
DC., 2005), available at https://www.
millenniumassessment.org/documents/
document.355.aspx.pdf.
[8] G. Fischer, F. N. Tubiello, H. van
Velthuizen, D. A. Wiberg, Climate
change impacts on irrigation
water requirements: Effects of
mitigation, 1990-2080. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change. 74,
1083–1107 (2007), DOI: 10.1016/j.
techfore.2006.05.021.
[9] W. Payne, New Research Approaches to
Improve Drylands Agriculture to Deliver
a More Prosperous Future (CGIAR
Dryland Systems Research Program,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2013), available
at http://drylandsystems.cgiar.org/sites/
default/files/New research approaches
to improve drylands agriculture.pdf.
[10] D. Tilman, Forecasting Agriculturally
Driven Global Environmental Change.
Science. 292, 281–284 (2001), DOI:
10.1126/science.1057544.
[11] P. Meyfroidt, E. F. Lambin, K.-H. Erb, T. W.
Hertel, Globalization of land use: distant
drivers of land change and geographic
displacement of land use. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.
5, 438–444 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
cosust.2013.04.003 (Accessed:
26/1/2017).
[12] N. D. Mueller et al., Closing yield
gaps through nutrient and water
management. Nature. 490, 254–257
(2012), DOI: 10.1038/nature11420.
[13] P. Smith et al., Global change
pressures on soils from land use and
management. Global Change Biology.
22, 1008–1028 (2016), DOI: 10.1111/
gcb.13068.
[14] D. Tilman, M. Clark, Food, Agriculture
&amp; the Environment: Can We Feed
the World &amp; Save the Earth?
Daedalus. 144, 8–23 (2015), DOI:
10.1162/DAED_a_00350.
[15] M. D. Purugganan, D. Q. Fuller, The
nature of selection during plant
domestication. Nature. 457, 843–848
(2009), DOI: 10.1038/nature07895.
[16] M. W. Yaish, P. P. Kumar, Salt tolerance
research in date palm tree (Phoenix
dactylifera L.), past, present, and
future perspectives. Frontiers in Plant
Science. 6, 348 (2015), DOI: 10.3389/
fpls.2015.00348.
[17] C. T. Chao, R. R. Krueger, The
Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera
L.): Overview of Biology, Uses,
and Cultivation. HortScience. 42,
1077–1082 (2007), available at
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/
content/42/5/1077.
[18] J. F. Reynolds et al., Global
desertification: Building a science for
dryland development. Science. 316, 847
(2007), DOI: 10.1126/science.1131634.
[19] H. L. C. Coutinho, E. Noellemeyer, E.
Jobbagy, M. Jonathan, J. Paruelo, in
Applying Ecological Knowledge to
Landuse Decisions, H. Tiessen, J. W. B.
Stewart, Eds. (Inter-American Institute
for Global Change Research (IAI), 2009),
pp. 56–65, available at http://www.
iai.int/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/
Applying_Ecological_Knowledge_to_
Landuse_Decisions.pdf.
[20] Global Harvest Initiative, Global
Agricultural Productivity Report
(2016), available at http://www.
globalharvestinitiative.org/index.php/
gap-report-gap-index/2016-gap-report/
(Accessed: 13/4/2017).
[21] S. Fritz et al., Mapping global cropland
and field size. Global Change Biology.
21, 1980–1992 (2015), DOI: 10.1111/
gcb.12838.
[22] FAO, The State of the World’s Land
and Water Resources for Food and
Agriculture – Managing Systems at
Risk (Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations and Earthscan,
Rome and London, 2011), DOI: 978-1-
84971-326-9.
[23] C. Vancutsem, E. Marinho, F. Kayitakire,
L. See, S. Fritz, Harmonizing and
Combining Existing Land Cover/
Land Use Datasets for Cropland Area
Monitoring at the African Continental
Scale. Remote Sensing. 5, 19–41
(2012), DOI: 10.3390/rs5010019.
[24] NASA LP DAAC, Land Cover Type Yearly
L3 Global 0.05Deg CMG (MCD12C1)
(2013), available at https://lpdaac.
usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis/
modis_products_table/mcd12c1.
[25] NASA LP DAAC, Land Cover Type Yearly
L3 Global 500 m SIN Grid (MCD12Q1)
(2015), available at https://lpdaac.
usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis/
modis_products_table/mcd12q1.
[26] ESA CCI-LC, Three global land
cover maps for the 2000, 2005
and 2010 epochs (2014), available
at https://www.esa-landcover-cci.
org/?q=node/158.
[27] N. Ramankutty, A. T. Evan, C. Monfreda,
J. a. Foley, Farming the planet: 1.
Geographic distribution of global
agricultural lands in the year 2000.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 22, 1–19
(2008), DOI: 10.1029/2007GB002952.
Impacts on Global Forests
(pp36-37)
[1] FAO, Global Forest Resources
Assessment 2015. How are the World’s
Forests Changing? (FAO, Rome, Second.,
2016), available at http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i4793e.pdf.
[2] R. J. Keenan et al., Dynamics of global
forest area: Results from the FAO
Global Forest Resources Assessment
2015. Forest Ecology and Management.
352, 9–20 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
foreco.2015.06.014.
[3] C. A. Nobre et al., Land-use and
climate change risks in the Amazon
and the need of a novel sustainable
development paradigm. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. 113,
10759–10768 (2016), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1605516113.
[4] H. J. Geist, E. F. Lambin, Proximate
causes and underlying driving
forces of tropical deforestation.
BioScience. 52, 143–150 (2002), DOI:
10.1641/0006- 3568(2002)052[0143:
PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2.
[5] R. Birdsey, Y. Pan, Trends in
management of the world’s forests
and impacts on carbon stocks.
Forest Ecology and Management.
355, 83–90 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
foreco.2015.04.031.
[6] S. Miura et al., Protective functions and
ecosystem services of global forests in
239
References (cont'd)
the past quarter-century. Forest Ecology
and Management. 352, 35–46 (2015),
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.039
(Accessed: 26/1/2017).
[7] M. Köhl et al., Changes in forest
production, biomass and carbon:
Results from the 2015 UN FAO
Global Forest Resource Assessment.
Forest Ecology and Management.
352, 21–34 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
foreco.2015.05.036.
[8] S. Federici, F. N. Tubiello, M. Salvatore,
H. Jacobs, J. Schmidhuber, New
estimates of CO2 forest emissions and
removals: 1990–2015. Forest Ecology
and Management. 352, 89–98 (2015),
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.022.
[9] V. Balthazar, V. Vanacker, A. Molina, E. F.
Lambin, Impacts of forest cover change
on ecosystem services in high Andean
mountains. Ecological Indicators.
48, 63–75 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
ecolind.2014.07.043.
[10] K. Dimobe et al., Identification of
driving factors of land degradation and
deforestation in the Wildlife Reserve
of Bontioli (Burkina Faso, West Africa).
Global Ecology and Conservation.
4, 559–571 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
gecco.2015.10.006 (Accessed:
26/1/2017).
[11] D. Morales-Hidalgo, S. N. Oswalt, E.
Somanathan, Status and trends in
global primary forest, protected areas,
and areas designated for conservation
of biodiversity from the Global
Forest Resources Assessment 2015.
Forest Ecology and Management.
352, 68–77 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
foreco.2015.06.011.
[12] J. D. Restrepo, A. J. Kettner, J. P. M.
Syvitski, Recent deforestation causes
rapid increase in river sediment load in
the Colombian Andes. Anthropocene.
10, 13–28 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
ancene.2015.09.001.
[13] K. Schulz et al., Grazing deteriorates the
soil carbon stocks of Caatinga forest
ecosystems in Brazil. Forest Ecology
and Management. 367, 62–70 (2016),
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.02.011.
[14] C. Kelly et al., Community resilience
and land degradation in forest
and shrubland socio-ecological
systems: Evidence from Gorgoglione,
Basilicata, Italy. Land Use Policy.
46, 11–20 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
landusepol.2015.01.026.
[15] M. C. Hansen et al., High-resolution
global maps of 21st-century forest
cover change. Science. 342, 850–3
(2013), DOI: 10.1126/science.1244693.
[16] INPE, Taxas anuais do desmatamento
- 1988 até 2016 (2017), available
at http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/
prodes_1988_2016n.htm (Accessed:
28/11/2017).
[17] J.-F. Bastin et al., The extent of forest in
dryland biomes. Science. 356, 635–638
(2017), DOI: 10.1126/science.aam6527.
[18] FAO, JRC, Global Forest Land-Use
Change 1990–2010. An update to FAO
Forestry Paper No. 169 (2014).
[19] P. Gong et al., Finer resolution
observation and monitoring of global
land cover: first mapping results
with Landsat TM and ETM+ data.
International Journal of Remote
Sensing. 34, 2607–2654 (2013), DOI:
10.1080/ 01431161.2012.748992.
Human Appropriation of
Land’s Biological Production
(pp38-39)
[1] H. Haberl, K. Erb, F. Krausmann, Global
human appropriation of net primary
production (HANPP) (2013), available
at http://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/
Global_human_appropriation_of_net_
primary_production_(HANPP).
[2] H. Haberl et al., Quantifying and
mapping the human appropriation
of net primary production in earth’s
terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. 104,
12942–12947 (2007), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.0704243104.
[3] M. L. Imhoff et al., Global patterns in
human consumption of net primary
production. Nature. 429, 870–873
(2004), DOI: 10.1038/nature02619.
[4] H. Haberl, Human Appropriation of Net
Primary Production as an Environmental
Indicator: Implications for Sustainable
Development. Ambio. 26, 143–146
(1997), available at www.jstor.org/
citation/info/10.2307/4314572.
[5] HANPP. Environ. Justice Gloss. (2013),
available at http://www.envjustice.
org/2013/01/hanpp/.
[6] F. Krausmann et al., Global human
appropriation of net primary
production doubled in the 20th
century. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 110,
10324–10329 (2013), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1211349110.
[7] R. H. Whittaker, G. E. Likens, Primary
production: The biosphere and man.
Human Ecology. 1, 357–369 (1973),
DOI: 10.1007/BF01536732.
[8] P. M. Vitousek, P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich,
P. A. Matson, Human Appropriation
of the Products of Photosynthesis.
BioScience. 36, 368–373 (1986), DOI:
10.2307/1310258.
[9] K. Petz et al., Mapping and modelling
240 World Atlas of Desertification | PART VII – Appendices
trade-offs and synergies between
grazing intensity and ecosystem
services in rangelands using
global-scale datasets and models.
Global Environmental Change. 29,
223–234 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2014.08.007.
[10] Alpen-Adria Universität, Global HANPP
Data (2016), available at https://www.
aau.at/blog/global-hanpp-2000/.
Environmental Globalisation:
Global Telecoupling
(pp40-41)
[1] E. F. Lambin, P. Meyfroidt, Global land
use change, economic globalization,
and the looming land scarcity.
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. 108, 3465–3472 (2011),
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1100480108.
[2] Y. Yu, K. Feng, K. Hubacek, Tele-
connecting local consumption to global
land use. Global Environmental Change.
23, 1178–1186 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2013.04.006.
[3] C. J. Tucker, J. R. G. Townshend,
Strategies for monitoring tropical
deforestation using satellite data.
International Journal of Remote
Sensing. 21, 1461–1471 (2000), DOI:
10.1080/014311600210263.
[4] P. Meyfroidt, T. K. Rudel, E. F. Lambin,
Forest transitions, trade, and the global
displacement of land use. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences.
107, 21300–21305 (2010), DOI:
10.1073/pnas.
[5] M. L. Pace, J. A. Gephart, Trade: A Driver
of Present and Future Ecosystems.
Ecosystems. 20, 1–10 (2016), DOI:
10.1007/s10021-016-0021-z.
[6] T. O. Wiedmann et al., The material
footprint of nations. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America. 112,
6271–6276 (2015), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1220362110.
[7] C. Friis et al., From teleconnection
to telecoupling: taking stock of
an emerging framework in land
system science. Journal of Land Use
Science. 11, 131–153 (2016), DOI:
10.1080/1747423X.2015.1096423.
[8] C. H. Wood, D. Skole, in Peaople and
Pixels: Linking remore sensing and
social science (National Academies
Press, Washington, DC., 1998), pp.
70–93.
[9] G. Q. Chen, M. Y. Han, Global supply
chain of arable land use: Production-
based and consumption-based trade
imbalance. Land Use Policy. 49,
118–130 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
landusepol.2015.07.023.
[10] P. Meyfroidt, E. F. Lambin, K.-H. Erb, T. W.
Hertel, Globalization of land use: distant
drivers of land change and geographic
displacement of land use. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.
5, 438–444 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
cosust.2013.04.003.
[11] J. Liu et al., Framing Sustainability in a
Telecoupled World. Ecology and Society.
18, art26 (2013), DOI: 10.5751/ES-
05873-180226.
[12] M. C. Rulli, A. Saviori, P. D’Odorico,
Global land and water grabbing.
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. 110, 892–897 (2013), DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1213163110.
[13] H. Eakin et al., in Rethinking Global
Land Use in an Urban Era, K. C.
Seto, A. Reenberg, Eds. (MIT Press,
2014), pp. 141–162, DOI: 10.7551/
mitpress/9780262026901.003.0008.
[14] J. Liu et al., Systems integration for
global sustainability. Science. 347,
1258832–1258832 (2015), DOI:
10.1126/science.1258832.
[15] E. F. Lambin, S. A. L. D’haen, O.
Mertz, J. Ø. Nielsen, K. Rasmussen,
Scenarios on future land changes in
the West African Sahel. Geografisk
Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of
Geography. 114, 76–83 (2014), DOI:
10.1080/00167223.2013.878229.
Environmental Globalisation:
Virtual Water
(pp42-43)
[1] M. M. Mekonnen, A. Y. Hoekstra,
Four billion people facing severe
water scarcity. Science Advances. 2,
e1500323–e1500323 (2016), DOI:
10.1126/sciadv.1500323.
[2] C. J. Vörösmarty, C. Pahl-Wostl, A.
Bhaduri, Water in the anthropocene:
New perspectives for global
sustainability. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability. 5,
535–538 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
cosust.2013.11.011.
[3] A. K. Chapagain, A. Y. Hoekstra, Water
Footprints of Nations (UNESCO-IHE,
Delft, The Netherlands, 2004), Value of
Water Research Report Series No. 16,
available at www.waterfootprint.org/
Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf.
[4] H. Yang, A. Zehnder, “Virtual water”:
An unfolding concept in integrated
water resources management. Water
Resources Research. 43, W12301,
doi:10.1029/2007WR00604 (2007),
DOI: 10.1029/2007WR006048.
[5] J. A. Carr, P. D’Odorico, F. Laio, L.
Ridolfi, Recent History and Geography
of Virtual Water Trade. PLoS ONE. 8,
e55825 (2013), DOI: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0055825.
[6] S. Suweis, A. Rinaldo, A. Maritan, P.
D’Odorico, Water-controlled wealth
of nations. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 110,
4230–4233 (2013), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1222452110.
[7] M. Lenzen et al., International trade
of scarce water. Ecological Economics.
94, 78–85 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2013.06.018.
[8] Z. Y. Zhang, H. Yang, M. J. Shi, A. J. B.
Zehnder, K. C. Abbaspour, Analyses
of impacts of China’s international
trade on its water resources and uses.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.
15, 2871–2880 (2011), DOI: 10.5194/
hess-15-2871-2011.
[9] J. Vos, L. Hinojosa, Virtual water
trade and the contestation of
hydrosocial territories. Water
International. 41, 37–53 (2016), DOI:
10.1080/02508060.2016.1107682.
[10] J. N. Galloway et al., International
Trade in Meat: The Tip of the Pork
Chop. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human
Environment. 36, 622–629 (2007), DOI:
10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[622:
ITIMTT]2.0.CO;2.
[11] X. Liu, J. J. Klemeš, P. S. Varbanov,
L. Čuček, Y. Qian, Virtual carbon and
water flows embodied in international
trade: a review on consumption-based
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production.
146, 20–28 (2017), DOI: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.03.129.
[12] J. Liu et al., Systems integration for
global sustainability. Science. 347,
1258832–1258832 (2015), DOI:
10.1126/science.1258832.
[13] A. Y. Hoekstra, M. M. Mekonnen,
The water footprint of humanity.
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. 109, 3232–3237 (2012),
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1109936109.
Environmental Globalisation:
Human activity
(pp44-45)
[1] L. R. Holdridge, Determination of World
Plant Formations From Simple Climatic
Data. Science. 105, 367–368 (1947),
DOI: 10.1126/science.105.2727.367.
[2] A. Lugo, H. Erickson, Novelty and Its
Ecological Implications to Dry Forest
Functioning and Conservation. Forests.
8, 161 (2017), DOI: 10.3390/f8050161.
[3] J. Scheff, D. M. W. Frierson, Terrestrial
Aridity and Its Response to Greenhouse
Warming across CMIP5 Climate
Models. Journal of Climate. 28,
5583–5600 (2015), DOI: 10.1175/
JCLI-D-14-00480.1.
[4] T.-G. Vågen, L. A. Winowiecki, J. E.
Tondoh, L. T. Desta, T. Gumbricht,
Mapping of soil properties and land
degradation risk in Africa using
MODIS reflectance. Geoderma. 263,
216–225 (2016), DOI: 10.1016/j.
geoderma.2015.06.023.
[5] E. C. Ellis, Ecology in an anthropogenic
biosphere. Ecological Monographs. 85,
287–331 (2015), DOI: 10.1890/14-
2274.1.
[6] E. C. Ellis, N. Ramankutty, Putting people
in the map: anthropogenic biomes of
the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment. 6, 439–447 (2008), DOI:
10.1890/070062.
[7] A. Fuentes, M. Baynes-Rock,
Anthropogenic Landscapes, Human
Action and the Process of Co-
Construction with other Species: Making
Anthromes in the Anthropocene.
Land. 6, 15 (2017), DOI: 10.3390/
land6010015.
[8] E. C. Ellis et al., Anthropogenic
transformation of the biomes,
1700 to 2000. Global Ecology
and Biogeography. 19, 589–606
(2010), DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-
8238.2010.00540.x.
PART III
FEEDING A GROWING
GLOBAL POPULATION
Croplands (pp48-49)
[1] P. Alexander et al., Drivers for global
agricultural land use change: The nexus
of diet, population, yield and bioenergy.
Global Environmental Change. 35,
138–147 (2015), DOI: 10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2015.08.011.
[2] J. a. Foley et al., Solutions for a
cultivated planet. Nature. 478,
337–342 (2011), DOI: 10.1038/
nature10452.
[3] FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture
2009. Livestock in the balance (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, 2009), available
at http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i0680e/i0680e00.htm.
[4] P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, M. Rosales,
V. Castel, H. Steinfeld, in Comparative
assessment of the environmental
costs of aquaculture and other food
production sectors (FAO, Rome, 2006),
pp. 37–54, available at http://www.fao.
org/docrep/010/a1445e/a1445e00.htm.
[5] U. Chakravorty, M.-H. Hubert, M.
Moreaux, L. Nøstbakken, Long-Run
Impact of Biofuels on Food Prices. The
Scandinavian Journal of Economics.
119, 733–767 (2017), DOI: 10.1111/
sjoe.12177.
[6] L. R. Lynd, J. Woods, Perspective: A new
hope for Africa. Nature. 474, S20–S21
(2011), DOI: 10.1038/474S020a.
[7] A. Eisentraut, “Sustainable Production
of Second-Generation Biofuels”
(2010), available at https://www.iea.
org/publications/freepublications/
publication/sustainable-production-of-
second-generation-biofuels.html.
[8] A. Scheidel, A. H. Sorman, Energy
transitions and the global land rush:
Ultimate drivers and persistent
consequences. Global Environmental
Change. 22, 588–595 (2012), DOI:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.12.005.
[9] C. Monfreda, N. Ramankutty, J. a. Foley,
Farming the planet: 2. Geographic
distribution of crop areas, yields,
physiological types, and net primary
production in the year 2000. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles. 22, 1–19
(2008), DOI: 10.1029/2007GB002947.
[10] E. F. Lambin, P. Meyfroidt, Global land
use change, economic globalization,
and the looming land scarcity.
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. 108, 3465–3472 (2011),
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1100480108.
[11] FAO, The State of the World’s Land
and Water Resources for Food and
Agriculture – Managing Systems at
Risk (Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations and Earthscan,
Rome and London, 2011), DOI: 978-1-
84971-326-9.
[12] FAO, IFAD, WFP, The State of Food
Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting
the 2015 International hunger targets:
taking stock of uneven progress (FAO,
Rome, Italy, 2015).
[13] M. M. Mekonnen, A. Y. Hoekstra, A Global
Assessment of the Water Footprint of
Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems.
15, 401–415 (2012), DOI: 10.1007/
s10021-011-9517-8.
[14] D. Nijdam, T. Rood, H. Westhoek, The
price of protein: Review of land use
and carbon footprints from life cycle
assessments of animal food products
and their substitutes. Food Policy.
37, 760–770 (2012), DOI: 10.1016/j.
foodpol.2012.08.002.
Expanding Cultivation
(pp50-51)
[1] P. Gerland et al., World population
stabilization unlikely this century.
Science. 346, 234–237 (2014), DOI:
10.1126/science.1257469.
[2] M. DeLonge, A. Basche, Leveraging
agroecology for solutions in food,
energy, and water. Elementa Science
of the Anthropocene. 5 (2017), DOI:
10.1525/elementa.211.
[3] N. Alexandratos, J. Bruinsma, World
Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The
2012 Revision. ESA Working paper No.
12-03 (FAO, Rome, 2012), available at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/
ap106e.pdf.
[4] D. Tilman, Global environmental
impacts of agricultural expansion:
The need for sustainable and efficient
practices. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. 96, 5995–6000
(1999), DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.11.5995.
[5] E. F. Lambin, Global land availability:
Malthus versus Ricardo. Global Food
Security. 1, 83–87 (2012), DOI:
10.1016/j.gfs.2012.11.002.
[6] J. A. Foley et al., Global Consequences
of Land Use. Science. 309, 570–574
(2005), DOI: 10.1126/science.1111772.
[7] R. Chaplin-Kramer et al., Spatial
patterns of agricultural expansion
determine impacts on biodiversity and
carbon storage. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 112,
7402–7407 (2015), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1406485112.
[8] G. S. Cumming et al., Implications of
agricultural transitions and urbanization
for ecosystem services. Nature.
515, 50–57 (2014), DOI: 10.1038/
nature13945.
[9] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
Ecosystem and human well-being:
general synthesis (Island Press,
Washington, DC, 2005), available at
https://www.millenniumassessment.org/
documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
[10] W. F. Laurance, J. Sayer, K. G. Cassman,
Agricultural expansion and its impacts
on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution. 29, 107–116 (2014), DOI:
10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.001.
[11] A. Tabeau, H. van Meijl, K. P. Overmars,
E. Stehfest, REDD policy impacts on
the agri-food sector and food security.
Food Policy. 66, 73–87 (2017), DOI:
10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.006.
[12] M. J. Saunders, F. Kansiime, M. B. Jones,
Agricultural encroachment: implications
for carbon sequestration in tropical
African wetlands. Global Change
Biology. 18, 1312–1321 (2012), DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02633.x.
[13] T. Reardon, Sustainability issues
for agricultural research strategies
in the semi-arid tropics: Focus on
the Sahel. Agricultural Systems.
48, 345–359 (1995), DOI:
10.1016/0308-521X(94)00020-R.
[14] D. Byerlee, J. Stevenson, N. Villoria,
Does intensification slow crop land
expansion or encourage deforestation?
Global Food Security. 3, 92–98 (2014),
DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2014.04.001.
[15] J. a. Foley et al., Solutions for a
cultivated planet. Nature. 478,
337–342 (2011), DOI: 10.1038/
nature10452.
[16] J. Tollefson, Deforestation spikes
in Brazilian Amazon. Nature. 540,
182–182 (2016), DOI: 10.1038/
nature.2016.21083.
[17] M. Petrick, J. Wandel, K. Karsten,
Rediscovering the Virgin Lands:
Agricultural Investment and Rural
Livelihoods in a Eurasian Frontier
Area. World Development. 43,
164–179 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
worlddev.2012.09.015.
[18] R. Kraemer et al., Long-term
agricultural land-cover change and
potential for cropland expansion
in the former Virgin Lands area of
Kazakhstan. Environmental Research
Letters. 10, 54012 (2015), DOI:
10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054012.
[19] P. Meyfroidt, F. Schierhorn, A. V
Prishchepov, D. Müller, T. Kuemmerle,
Drivers, constraints and trade-
offs associated with recultivating
abandoned cropland in Russia, Ukraine
and Kazakhstan. Global Environmental
Change. 37, 1–15 (2016), DOI:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.003.
[20] W. Mauser et al., Global biomass
production potentials exceed expected
future demand without the need
for cropland expansion. Nature
Communications. 6, 8946 (2015), DOI:
10.1038/ncomms9946.
[21] F. Schierhorn, D. Müller, A. V
Prishchepov, M. Faramarzi, A. Balmann,
The potential of Russia to increase its
wheat production through cropland
expansion and intensification. Global
Food Security. 3, 133–141 (2014), DOI:
10.1016/j.gfs.2014.10.007.
[22] T. J. Lark, J. Meghan Salmon, H. K.
Gibbs, Cropland expansion outpaces
agricultural and biofuel policies in the
United States. Environmental Research
Letters. 10, 44003 (2015), DOI:
10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044003.
[23] J. Chamberlin, T. S. Jayne, D.
Headey, Scarcity amidst abundance?
Reassessing the potential for cropland
expansion in Africa. Food Policy.
48, 51–65 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
foodpol.2014.05.002.
[24] Y. Yu, K. Feng, K. Hubacek, Tele-
connecting local consumption to global
land use. Global Environmental Change.
23, 1178–1186 (2013), DOI: 10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2013.04.006.
[25] H. Eakin et al., in Rethinking Global
Land Use in an Urban Era, K. C.
Seto, A. Reenberg, Eds. (MIT Press,
2014), pp. 141–162, DOI: 10.7551/
mitpress/9780262026901.003.0008.
[26] J. Liu et al., Systems integration for
global sustainability. Science. 347,
1258832–1258832 (2015), DOI:
10.1126/science.1258832.
[27] P. C. West et al., Trading carbon
for food: Global comparison of
carbon stocks vs. crop yields on
agricultural land. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 107,
19645–19648 (2010), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1011078107.
[28] G. Schwilch, R. Mekdaschi Studer, I.
Providoli, H. Liniger, in EGU General
Assembly Conference Abstracts (2015),
vol. 17, p. 11918, available at http://
meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/
EGU2015/EGU2015-11918-1.pdf.
[29] J. Sayer et al., Ten principles for a
landscape approach to reconciling
agriculture, conservation, and other
competing land uses. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. 110,
8349–8356 (2013), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1210595110.
[30] N. Vuichard, P. Ciais, L. Belelli, P. Smith,
R. Valentini, Carbon sequestration due
to the abandonment of agriculture in
the former USSR since 1990. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles. 22, n/a-n/a
(2008), DOI: 10.1029/2008GB003212.
[31] J. Graesser, T. M. Aide, H. R. Grau, N.
Ramankutty, Cropland/pastureland
dynamics and the slowdown of
deforestation in Latin America.
Environmental Research Letters. 10,
34017 (2015), DOI: 10.1088/1748-
9326/10/3/034017.
[32] S. Channan, K. Collins, W. R. Emanuel,
Global mosaics of the standard MODIS
land cover type data (University of
Maryland and the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, College Park,
Maryland, USA, 2014).
[33] M. A. Friedl et al., MODIS Collection
5 global land cover : Algorithm
refinements and characterization of
new datasets. Remote Sensing of
Environment. 114, 168–182 (2010),
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016.
Increasing Production:
Closing Yield Gaps (pp52-53)
[1] B. Phalan, R. Green, A. Balmford, Closing
yield gaps: perils and possibilities for
biodiversity conservation. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences. 369, 20120285–
20120285 (2014), DOI: 10.1098/
rstb.2012.0285.
[2] J. a. Foley et al., Solutions for a
cultivated planet. Nature. 478,
337–342 (2011), DOI: 10.1038/
nature10452.
[3] K. Neumann, P. H. Verburg, E.
Stehfest, C. Müller, The yield gap of
global grain production: A spatial
analysis. Agricultural Systems. 103,
316–326 (2010), DOI: 10.1016/j.
agsy.2010.02.004.
[4] P. Pradhan, G. Fischer, H. van Velthuizen,
D. E. Reusser, J. P. Kropp, Closing Yield
Gaps: How Sustainable Can We Be?
PLOS ONE. 10, e0129487 (2015), DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0129487.
[5] M. van Noordwijk, L. Brussaard,
Minimizing the ecological footprint
of food: closing yield and efficiency
gaps simultaneously? Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability.
8, 62–70 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
cosust.2014.08.008.
[6] P. Tittonell, Ecological intensification
of agriculture—sustainable by nature.
Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability. 8, 53–61 (2014), DOI:
10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006.
[7] P. Tittonell, K. E. Giller, When yield gaps
are poverty traps: The paradigm of
ecological intensification in African
smallholder agriculture. Field Crops
Research. 143, 76–90 (2013), DOI:
10.1016/j.fcr.2012.10.007.
[8] F. M. Dzanku, M. Jirström, H. Marstorp,
Yield Gap-Based Poverty Gaps in
Rural Sub-Saharan Africa. World
Development. 67, 336–362 (2015),
DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.030.
[9] R. A. Fischer, Definitions and
determination of crop yield, yield gaps,
and of rates of change. Field Crops
Research. 182, 9–18 (2015), DOI:
10.1016/j.fcr.2014.12.006.
[10] M. Alauddin, J. Quiggin, Agricultural
intensification, irrigation and the
environment in South Asia: Issues and
policy options. Ecological Economics.
65, 111–124 (2008), DOI: 10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2007.06.004.
[11] J. Chamberlin, T. S. Jayne, D.
Headey, Scarcity amidst abundance?
Reassessing the potential for cropland
expansion in Africa. Food Policy.
48, 51–65 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
foodpol.2014.05.002.
[12] T. K. Rudel et al., Agricultural
intensification and changes in
cultivated areas, 1970-2005.
Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. 106,
20675–20680 (2009), DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.0812540106.
[13] W. Mauser et al., Global biomass
production potentials exceed expected
future demand without the need
for cropland expansion. Nature
Communications. 6, 8946 (2015), DOI:
10.1038/ncomms9946.
[14] R. Licker et al., Mind the gap:
how do climate and agricultural
management explain the “yield
gap” of croplands around the world?
Global Ecology and Biogeography. 19,
769–782 (2010), DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-
8238.2010.00563.x.
[15] N. D. Mueller et al., Closing yield
gaps through nutrient and water
management. Nature. 490, 254–257
(2012), DOI: 10.1038/nature11420.
[16] FAO, Save and Grow: A Policymaker’s
Guide to the Sustainable Intensification
of Smallholder Crop Production (Rome,
2011).
[17] E. F. Lambin et al., The causes of
land-use and land-cover change:
moving beyond the myths. Global
Environmental Change. 11, 261–269
(2001), DOI: 10.1016/S0959-
3780(01)00007-3.
Increasing Production:
Fertilisers (pp54-55)
[1] E. F. Lambin, Global land availability:
Malthus versus Ricardo. Global Food
Security. 1, 83–87 (2012), DOI:
[2]
10.1016/j.gfs.2012.11.002.
N. Zeng et al., Agricultural Green
Revolution as a driver of increasing
atmospheric CO2 seasonal amplitude.
Nature. 515, 394–397 (2014), DOI:
10.1038/nature13893 (Accessed:
26/1/2017).
[3] M. van Noordwijk, L. Brussaard,
Minimizing the ecological footprint
of food: closing yield and efficiency
gaps simultaneously? Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability.
8, 62–70 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.
cosust.2014.08.008.
[4] P. Pradhan, G. Fischer, H. van Velthuizen,
D. E. Reusser, J. P. Kropp, Closing Yield
Gaps: How Sustainable Can We Be?
PLOS ONE. 10, e0129487 (2015), DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0129487.
[5] T. George, Why crop yields in developing
countries have not kept pace with
advances in agronomy. Global Food
Security. 3, 49–58 (2014), DOI:
10.1016/j.gfs.2013.10.002.
[6] A. L. Josephson, J. Ricker-Gilbert, R.
J. G. M. Florax, How does population
density influence agricultural
intensification and productivity?