Search

• There is high consistency in the extent of land degradation. • There are consistent hydrothermal change characteristics in the land degradation hotspots area. Land degradation is a major impediment to achieving sustainable development. However, there is currently no harmonized global map of land degradation status and hotspots. This paper aims to obtain the status and hotspots map of global land degradation by multiple methods and indicators to give essential references for land degradation neutrality. The results show that there are significant differences in the distribution and degree of land degradation between the different methods and indicators. Validation through observation points reveals that most of the methods and indicators can reflect land degradation in arid and semi-arid areas, while there are suitable methods or indicators in tropical and high-latitude areas. The degree of degradation has a large difference after overlay analysis, which shows that there are shortcomings of different methods and indicators for monitoring the degree of land degradation. However, the overlay of land degradation extent displays a high consistency, reflecting the current state of global land degradation to a certain extent. These areas with high overlay value can be recognized as hotspots of land degradation. It is also found there are consistent water-energy change characteristics in the hotspot area, such as increased land surface temperature and air temperature and decreased soil moisture and precipitation. These results conclude that studies on the degree of land degradation need to be considered in an integrated manner about the regional background. The combination of multiple methods and indicators is recommended for land degradation extent studies in large areas. Comparison of different methods and indicators is important guidance for global land degradation research. Accelerating ecological monitoring and restoration of land degradation hotspots is the first step towards land degradation neutrality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land degradation is a major impediment to achieving sustainable development. However, there is currently no harmonized global map of land degradation status and hotspots. This paper aims to obtain the status and hotspots map of global land degradation by multiple methods and indicators to give essential references for land degradation neutrality. The results show that there are significant differences in the distribution and degree of land degradation between the different methods and indicators. Validation through observation points reveals that most of the methods and indicators can reflect land degradation in arid and semi-arid areas, while there are suitable methods or indicators in tropical and high-latitude areas. The degree of degradation has a large difference after overlay analysis, which shows that there are shortcomings of different methods and indicators for monitoring the degree of land degradation. However, the overlay of land degradation extent displays a high consistency, reflecting the current state of global land degradation to a certain extent. These areas with high overlay value can be recognized as hotspots of land degradation. It is also found there are consistent water-energy change characteristics in the hotspot area, such as increased land surface temperature and air temperature and decreased soil moisture and precipitation. These results conclude that studies on the degree of land degradation need to be considered in an integrated manner about the regional background. The combination of multiple methods and indicators is recommended for land degradation extent studies in large areas. Comparison of different methods and indicators is important guidance for global land degradation research. Accelerating ecological monitoring and restoration of land degradation hotspots is the first step towards land degradation neutrality.

• Five decades of academic research related to bioindicators for soil quality. • Bibliometrics and systematic review of soil bioindicators. • Network visualization mapping of bioindicator co-occurrence in soil quality. • Twenty-five most widely applied soil quality bioindicators. Biological indicators of soil quality express the capacity of a soil to maintain its ecosystem functions and services between socio-ecosystem inflection thresholds; therefore, they are determinants in management and land use decisions. However, their development until a few decades ago was limited for several reasons: reductionism and early development of other dimensions, such as physical and chemical indicators or their methodological complexity, thus affecting the importance given to biological factors and the integral evaluation of soil quality or health. Thus, this review presents a mapping of the scientific contributions of the last 50 years oriented to the theoretical and methodological development of biological indicators of soil quality, identifying their development and application in these decades. We conducted a bibliometric analysis that allowed us to present an overview of the field with respect to scientific production: temporality, geographical origin, institutional origin, journals that promote the development of the field, articles with greater influence by citation in the field of study, and the co-occurrences of these indicators in research. This analysis was complemented at the second stage by a systematic review of the literature with the greatest impact by citation. We found 2320 scientific papers distributed mainly in the United States (17.8%), China (12.2%), Brazil (8.3%), India (6.3%), and European Mediterranean countries, such as Spain, France, and Italy (14.2%). Our review showed 25 biological indicators with the highest occurrence; for example, microbial biomass (1 1 8), enzymatic activity (90), and organic matter (78); other indicators, such as earthworms, nematodes, or springtails, are also reported. All indicators showed relationships, to a greater or lesser extent, with soil biodiversity and its functions in the landscape. Important advances in soil indicators have developed gradually in the last few decades, with scientific efforts mainly concentrated in developed and emerging countries. In the last decade, the production curve continues with a growth trend., and research questions in the field revolve around the linkage of diversity and function from a molecular point of view. The scope goes beyond productivity, manifesting the real need to conserve and manage the ecosystem services of a limited and non-renewable natural resource. Pioneering research should begin to report on the scope of soil biological monitoring and its influence on policy, management, and land use. Finally, the promotion of research networks with developing countries can foster the development of regional and local soil monitoring policies in these regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Review of indicator frameworks for urban sustainability and coastal adaptation. • Comparison of frameworks and analysis of differences and similarities. • Consistency among sustainability frameworks; ambiguities in coastal adaptation. • Varying scopes of city functions and risk create barriers to integrated assessment. • Integrated assessments can obviate unintended consequences and foster synergies. Current adaptation responses to sea-level rise tend to focus on protecting existing infrastructure resulting in unsustainable adaptation pathways. At the same time, urban development compromises a city's adaptive capacity if the climate risk component is ignored. While fighting for the same space, these two domains are currently widely analyzed separately. This paper develops a framework for integrating sustainability assessments of sustainable urban development (SUD) and coastal adaptation to climate change (CACC). Through a systematic literature review, we collected more than 2,700 indicators for SUD and 1,800 indicators for CACC. The indicators occurring most frequently are extracted and structured into frameworks. The study highlights the differences and similarities between the two frameworks. We further identify complementary and conflicting objectives that can advance or inhibit the effective integration of SUD and CACC. CACC tends to focus on assessing specific adaptation measures and their immediate impact on the city's vulnerability, ignoring wider impacts on socioeconomic systems. SUD considers the city and its functions as a whole but ignores vulnerability assessments across urban subsystems. We develop a combined framework for sustainability assessment that may serve as a basis for both qualitative and quantitative integrated studies under the paradigm of sustainable adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biological indicators of soil quality express the capacity of a soil to maintain its ecosystem functions and services between socio-ecosystem inflection thresholds; therefore, they are determinants in management and land use decisions. However, their development until a few decades ago was limited for several reasons: reductionism and early development of other dimensions, such as physical and chemical indicators or their methodological complexity, thus affecting the importance given to biological factors and the integral evaluation of soil quality or health. Thus, this review presents a mapping of the scientific contributions of the last 50 years oriented to the theoretical and methodological development of biological indicators of soil quality, identifying their development and application in these decades. We conducted a bibliometric analysis that allowed us to present an overview of the field with respect to scientific production: temporality, geographical origin, institutional origin, journals that promote the development of the field, articles with greater influence by citation in the field of study, and the co-occurrences of these indicators in research. This analysis was complemented at the second stage by a systematic review of the literature with the greatest impact by citation. We found 2320 scientific papers distributed mainly in the United States (17.8%), China (12.2%), Brazil (8.3%), India (6.3%), and European Mediterranean countries, such as Spain, France, and Italy (14.2%). Our review showed 25 biological indicators with the highest occurrence; for example, microbial biomass (118), enzymatic activity (90), and organic matter (78); other indicators, such as earthworms, nematodes, or springtails, are also reported. All indicators showed relationships, to a greater or lesser extent, with soil biodiversity and its functions in the landscape. Important advances in soil indicators have developed gradually in the last few decades, with scientific efforts mainly concentrated in developed and emerging countries. In the last decade, the production curve continues with a growth trend., and research questions in the field revolve around the linkage of diversity and function from a molecular point of view. The scope goes beyond productivity, manifesting the real need to conserve and manage the ecosystem services of a limited and non-renewable natural resource. Pioneering research should begin to report on the scope of soil biological monitoring and its influence on policy, management, and land use. Finally, the promotion of research networks with developing countries can foster the development of regional and local soil monitoring policies in these regions.

Current adaptation responses to sea-level rise tend to focus on protecting existing infrastructure resulting in unsustainable adaptation pathways. At the same time, urban development compromises a city’s adaptive capacity if the climate risk component is ignored. While fighting for the same space, these two domains are currently widely analyzed separately. This paper develops a framework for integrating sustainability assessments of sustainable urban development (SUD) and coastal adaptation to climate change (CACC). Through a systematic literature review, we collected more than 2,700 indicators for SUD and 1,800 indicators for CACC. The indicators occurring most frequently are extracted and structured into frameworks. The study highlights the differences and similarities between the two frameworks. We further identify complementary and conflicting objectives that can advance or inhibit the effective integration of SUD and CACC. CACC tends to focus on assessing specific adaptation measures and their immediate impact on the city’s vulnerability, ignoring wider impacts on socioeconomic systems. SUD considers the city and its functions as a whole but ignores vulnerability assessments across urban subsystems. We develop a combined framework for sustainability assessment that may serve as a basis for both qualitative and quantitative integrated studies under the paradigm of sustainable adaptation.

• We reviewed the progress, indicators, and methods of agroecosystem services. • Agroecosystem services are closely related to agroecosystem functions and human agricultural practices. • Multi-source data fusion for integrated model will be the tendency for agroecosystem service assessment. • Agricultural landscape planning and governance can help to improve agroecosystem services and achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs). Agroecosystems benefit from many ecosystem services and are frequently managed to increase productivity. In recent years, agricultural industrialization has caused the loss of some important ecosystem services in agroecosystems, hindering some sustainable development goals (SDGs). In order to promote sustainable agricultural development, it is necessary to restore the damaged agroecosystems and improve agroecosystem services (AES). However, there are relatively few studies on AES, and fewer studies concerning the definition or connotation of AES. Therefore, this paper reviews current AES research, indicators, and assessment methods, as well as directions for future research. AES are determined by agroecosystem functions and human agricultural practices, with both positive and negative effects, scale effects, and trade-offs and synergies between AES. AES indicators can be classified as provisioning services, regulating services, and cultural services, with a few studies including supporting services. Currently, the main AES assessment methods include public participation, empirical model, mechanism model, and value estimation. Multi-source data fusion for integrated models to assess multiple AES will be the future research trend. In addition, AES research should develop additional promising topics, including considering both AES and agroecosystem disservices (AEDS); assessing AES supply, demand, and flow; and analyzing AES trade-offs and synergies comprehensively. This will extend the research field to the links between AES and SDGs and their applications in agricultural landscape planning and governance. This review highlights the importance of AES research to more effectively manage agroecosystems and promote sustainable agricultural development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agroecosystems benefit from many ecosystem services and are frequently managed to increase productivity. In recent years, agricultural industrialization has caused the loss of some important ecosystem services in agroecosystems, hindering some sustainable development goals (SDGs). In order to promote sustainable agricultural development, it is necessary to restore the damaged agroecosystems and improve agroecosystem services (AES). However, there are relatively few studies on AES, and fewer studies concerning the definition or connotation of AES. Therefore, this paper reviews current AES research, indicators, and assessment methods, as well as directions for future research. AES are determined by agroecosystem functions and human agricultural practices, with both positive and negative effects, scale effects, and trade-offs and synergies between AES. AES indicators can be classified as provisioning services, regulating services, and cultural services, with a few studies including supporting services. Currently, the main AES assessment methods include public participation, empirical model, mechanism model, and value estimation. Multi-source data fusion for integrated models to assess multiple AES will be the future research trend. In addition, AES research should develop additional promising topics, including considering both AES and agroecosystem disservices (AEDS); assessing AES supply, demand, and flow; and analyzing AES trade-offs and synergies comprehensively. This will extend the research field to the links between AES and SDGs and their applications in agricultural landscape planning and governance. This review highlights the importance of AES research to more effectively manage agroecosystems and promote sustainable agricultural development.

[Display omitted] • Intermittent rivers provide numerous ecosystem services. • This study provide 133 indicators to evaluate IRES ecosystem services. • A subset of indicators was applied to two Mediterranean rivers. • Ecosystem services provision strongly depended on hydrological phases. • This new framework can improve the management and restoration of IRES. In these times of strong pressure on aquatic ecosystems and water resources due to climate change and water abstraction, intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams (IRES) (rivers that periodically cease to flow and/or dry) have become valuable assets. Indeed, not only do they supply water but they also offer services for humanity. Despite a growing recognition towards IRES, information for assessing their ecosystem services (ES) remains scarce. In a first step, an international interdisciplinary group of researchers developed a methodological framework to acknowledge ES provided by IRES using 109 indicators. A subset of selected ES indicators was then applied to two case studies: the Rio Seco in the Algarve (Portugal) and the Giofyros River in Crete (Greece). This paper discusses the applicability of these indicators, including the temporal and spatial variability of IRES flow regimes. Aspects of the framework, such as the methods and time required for data collection, the nature (demand or supply) and functionality of each indicator are discussed. The new framework accounts for flow intermittence in ES analyses and can help scientists and water managers to i) increase the ease and justification for IRES use in management approaches and ii) improve their conservation and restoration with a comprehensive set of appropriate indicators for IRES. In addition, the comprehensive nature of the proposed indicators ensures that they can be understood by a broad audience and easily applicable. Since they were designed through a public participation process, the setting has been prepared for holistic stakeholder analysis and education around IRES functions and associated ES. From a management point of view, it would be particularly relevant to perform an economic evaluation with this new framework to understand the value of each ES category and their trade-offs. For the scientific community, however, it is important to consider public preferences to design socially accepted policies. The proposed indicators can successfully bridge these elements, hereby establishing a solid basis for the assessment of ES provided by IRES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In these times of strong pressure on aquatic ecosystems and water resources due to climate change and water abstraction, intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams (IRES) (rivers that periodically cease to flow and/or dry) have become valuable assets. Indeed, not only do they supply water but they also offer services for humanity. Despite a growing recognition towards IRES, information for assessing their ecosystem services (ES) remains scarce. In a first step, an international interdisciplinary group of researchers developed a methodological framework to acknowledge ES provided by IRES using 109 indicators. A subset of selected ES indicators was then applied to two case studies: the Rio Seco in the Algarve (Portugal) and the Giofyros River in Crete (Greece). This paper discusses the applicability of these indicators, including the temporal and spatial variability of IRES flow regimes. Aspects of the framework, such as the methods and time required for data collection, the nature (demand or supply) and functionality of each indicator are discussed. The new framework accounts for flow intermittence in ES analyses and can help scientists and water managers to i) increase the ease and justification for IRES use in management approaches and ii) improve their conservation and restoration with a comprehensive set of appropriate indicators for IRES. In addition, the comprehensive nature of the proposed indicators ensures that they can be understood by a broad audience and easily applicable. Since they were designed through a public participation process, the setting has been prepared for holistic stakeholder analysis and education around IRES functions and associated ES. From a management point of view, it would be particularly relevant to perform an economic evaluation with this new framework to understand the value of each ES category and their trade-offs. For the scientific community, however, it is important to consider public preferences to design socially accepted policies. The proposed indicators can successfully bridge these elements, hereby establishing a solid basis for the assessment of ES provided by IRES.