Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Forest Landscape Integrity Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global index of forest condition

TheForest Landscape Integrity Index (FLII) is a global, map-based indicator offorest condition that estimates the degree of anthropogenic modification of forest ecosystems.[1]Developed by an international research team led by theWildlife Conservation Society, the index integrates spatial data onobserved andinferred human pressures and loss of forest connectivity to produce a continuous score from 0 (most modified) to 10 (least modified) for each ~300 m forest pixel.[1][2]

In the study's global map for early 2019, 40.5% of forest area (about 17.4 million km2) was classified ashigh integrity (FLII ≥ 9.6), 33.9% (14.6 million km2) asmedium integrity and 25.6% (11 million km2) aslow integrity (FLII ≤ 6.0).[1]High-integrity forests were concentrated in boreal regions ofRussia andCanada and in large tropical forest blocks such as theAmazon,Central Africa andNew Guinea.[1]

FLII has been used in forest-condition monitoring and referenced in policy and research contexts, including discussions of ecosystem integrity indicators under theKunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.[3][4]

Forest integrity

[edit]

In ecology,ecological integrity (sometimesecosystem integrity) refers to the extent to which anecosystem's structure, speciescomposition and ecological processes fall within their natural range of variation.[5]In forests, integrity is often discussed alongside, but distinct from,deforestation (area loss) andforest degradation (declines in condition or function without complete land-cover conversion).[1]

The FLII operationalizes forest integrity as the inverse of cumulative human modification at the landscape scale, combining mapped pressures, modeled indirect effects and changes inconnectivity to generate a globally consistent, continuous integrity score.[1]

Methodology

[edit]

Granthamet al. calculated FLII by integrating four main spatial inputs—forest extent, observed pressures, inferred pressures and loss of forest connectivity—with processing carried out inGoogle Earth Engine.[1]

Forest extent and temporal baseline

[edit]

The forest extent layer was designed to represent forest at the start of 2019. Forest was defined as woody vegetation taller than 5 m with at least 20% canopy cover. To map extent, the authors used global tree-cover estimates for 2000 and subtracted mapped tree-cover loss from 2001–2018 (excluding temporary canopy loss).[1]

Observed and inferred pressures

[edit]

Observed pressures represent human activities that can be mapped directly at global scale (e.g. built infrastructure, agriculture and recent deforestation). Inferred pressures represent additional impacts that tend to occur around observed pressures but are harder to map directly (e.g. access-related extraction such as selective logging, fuelwood collection and hunting), modeled as a decay function of proximity to observed pressure sources and access networks.[1]

Connectivity loss

[edit]

The connectivity component estimates reductions in forest connectivity caused by forest loss and fragmentation, capturing the influence of surrounding forest cover on a given pixel's integrity.[1]

Scores and classes

[edit]

The continuous FLII ranges from 0 to 10. For communication and reporting, the authors also provided an illustrative three-class map: low (≤6.0), medium (>6.0 and <9.6) and high (≥9.6), with thresholds benchmarked against reference locations of known ecological integrity.[1]The study noted the approach could be updated as new global datasets become available, including potentially on an annual basis.[1]

Global results

[edit]

In the 2019 map, the authors estimated that 91.2% of the world's remaining forests were affected by some degree of human pressure, and 31.2% experiencedobserved pressures.[1]They reported a global mean FLII score of 7.76; 18 countries had mean scores greater than 9, and no biome or biogeographic realm contained more than half of its forest area in the high-integrity class.[1][3]

High-integrity forests were disproportionately concentrated in a small number of countries (withRussia andCanada together containing about half of the global high-integrity forest area).[1]Only about 27% of high-integrity forest area fell within nationally designatedprotected areas, while 56% of forests within protected areas were classed as high integrity.[1]

Country rankings

[edit]

172 countries have been ranked:[6]

Forest Landscape Integrity 2019
CountryMean FLIILow integrity (km2)Medium integrity (km2)High integrity (km2)Total forest area (km2)Map
Seychelles10006868
Sudan9.8172495569
Guyana9.584,16240,817147,413192,391
South Sudan9.455,08359,389146,218210,691
Suriname9.396,79625,031107,954139,781
Mongolia9.3652011,91527,40739,841
Central African Republic9.2830,161139,350379,097548,608
Botswana9.1313187372572
Gabon9.0711,780118,348120,852250,979
Russia9.02739,4842,245,2815,137,0798,121,843
Canada8.99480,2061,027,3862,968,2684,475,860
Congo8.8924,512124,215158,184306,911
Kyrgyzstan8.863292,8192,7615,909
Peru8.8685,793190,547509,720786,061
Afghanistan8.85901,4759772,542
Bhutan8.851,62016,76910,14028,529
Papua New Guinea8.8437,294183,415216,355437,064
Vanuatu8.827345,3224,44810,504
Venezuela8.7864,650170,792351,112586,554
Tajikistan8.6534137130301
Bolivia8.4778,745280,532272,007631,284
Namibia8.435131736
Angola8.35105,487284,054315,895705,436
Fiji8.351,75310,8023,59416,148
Colombia8.26150,737272,442428,320851,499
Kazakhstan8.236,06818,92615,29440,288
Palau8.09453339387
North Korea8.028,37440,1568,41056,939
Cameroon866,191181,336119,263366,789
Equatorial Guinea7.993,98217,5955,00726,585
Georgia7.796,98217,8039,78434,570
Brunei Darussalam7.711,1022,8421,4985,442
Comoros7.692841,149821,515
Iran7.673,36112,9302,16218,453
Ecuador7.6648,82277,58573,492199,900
DRC7.56533,118935,508727,9832,196,608
Micronesia7.55835043
Brazil7.521,374,9021,354,9612,338,1015,067,963
Zambia7.596,969164,376110,822372,167
North Macedonia7.422,0347,0904599,583
Pakistan7.422,0907,8591,13911,088
Lesotho7.41405
Chile7.3756,84941,97193,537192,357
Bahamas7.357411,9353993,075
  Nepal7.2313,78541,9923,76059,538
Australia7.22117,672239,624103,852461,148
Argentina7.2198,249189,96672,557360,772
Solomon Islands7.196,87115,3103,14925,329
Myanmar7.18129,745220,18896,924446,857
Ethiopia7.1652,65284,43044,397181,479
Mali7.164519961401,586
Somalia7.163471,384461,777
China7.14533,800974,431301,0511,809,282
Tanzania7.13123,997159,712122,812406,521
New Zealand7.1234,50344,15535,334113,992
Senegal7.118472,4561623,465
Timor-Leste7.111,7837,008478,838
India7.09117,992254,79254,428427,211
Cyprus7.063881,026181,432
Norway6.9839,34367,38316,627123,352
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines6.95912210312
Mozambique6.93150,665189,362115,379455,406
Mexico6.82193,908280,445121,842596,195
Albania6.772,4265,2561227,805
Uzbekistan6.77214227199640
Morocco6.742,2604,0764516,787
United States6.651,328,0791,144,693658,6453,131,417
Sao Tome and Principe6.64311400171
Trinidad and Tobago6.621,4782,1764184,072
Greece6.614,54827,8331,07843,459
Indonesia6.6535,370509,018431,9731,476,361
Azerbaijan6.554,8207,1891,53413,543
Montenegro6.412,9494,778827,809
Paraguay6.3978,538102,62629,877211,041
Turkey6.3943,04368,2433,516114,801
Taiwan6.388,78614,5471,45324,786
Cabo Verde6.372738065
Panama6.3725,42021,31014,60561,336
Cambodia6.3130,14331,93916,34978,431
Turkmenistan6.31533037
Zimbabwe6.319,45014,4171,64425,511
Nigeria6.264,62165,35524,307154,283
Chad6.185,2616,0161,91013,187
Saint Lucia6.172353160551
Belize6.157,0047,9572,74417,705
Bulgaria6.0918,88426,32584746,057
South Korea6.0225,06032,00988857,956
Thailand686,27689,32633,612209,214
Bosnia and Herzegovina5.9913,38717,03157430,993
Romania5.9538,39548,39460787,395
Philippines5.9191,820100,8318,393201,044
Togo5.885,0644,5221,07610,662
Benin5.864,7243,6981,76910,191
Sri Lanka5.8320,.54122,3901,61344,544
Japan5.8135,783133,48016,005285,268
Malawi5.7412,51412,1672,39627,078
Guinea-Bissau5.79,2748,70285518,831
Laos5.5992,98680,56419,252192,801
Armenia5.461,8941,68133,577
Mauritius5.4656747801,045
Bangladesh5.4510,0137,2511,94719,211
Cuba5.422,60518,4601,63242,697
Sweden5.35174,415109,77923,494307,687
Vietnam5.3582,55175,3539,588167,492
Serbia5.2917,51314,11251632,141
Algeria5.227,4186,0448113,543
Kosovo5.192,6281,775474,450
Tunisia5.141,35498702,340
Finland5.08144,31083,5729,294237,176
Jamaica5.015,3623,2491588,770
Malaysia5.01130,82591,95721,499244,281
South Africa4.9445,48934,9683,19683,653
Croatia4.9215,73210,52237926,633
Guinea4.981,70254,8772,895139,475
Libya4.85152017
Liberia4.7951,97531,16211,02594,163
Antigua and Barbuda4.72114920206
Costa Rica4.6527,16412,8384,16444,167
Madagascar4.63120,34066,58411,922198,846
Gambia4.56181850266
Saint Kitts and Nevis4.5595500145
Ghana4.5357,51928,9012,16088,580
France4.52161,98749,49674,121285,604
Burundi4.56,8823,8414610,769
Liechtenstein4.559420101
Honduras4.4857,89923,8023,69285,392
Andorra4.45170490219
Uganda4.3677,30336,3817,507121,190
Slovakia4.3417,6158,165025,781
Spain4.2382,77046,013133128,916
Grenada4.22221860308
Eswatini4.215,0542,501147,569
Kenya4.228,42713,5584,70246,686
Dominican Republic4.1919,8909,36451829,772
Israel4.14170850255
El Salvador4.058,8372,947011,784
Haiti4.017,1162,831129,959
Guatemala3.8558,57218,7645,59282,928
Rwanda3.855,6652,1706198,454
Slovenia3.7811,0653,791014,856
Lebanon3.765411150656
Italy3.6579,40326,85825106,286
Cote d'Ivoire3.64158,01041,0057,288206,303
Syria3.6484128201,123
Belarus3.6377,87020,8479198,808
Nicaragua3.6365,35617,6464,85887,860
Uruguay3.6111,7933,998015,791
Iraq3.5910490113
Austria3.5536,66612,4222149,109
 Switzerland3.5313,6364,4121018,058
Ukraine3.389,54020,183176109,900
Estonia3.0524,4734,8325229,358
Jordan2.79120012
Sierra Leone2.7652,51211,85864065,010
Germany2.28122,16811,3070133,475
Hungary2.2518,7292,047020,776
Poland2.24101,8867,1030108,989
Moldova2.23,11320203,315
Latvia2.0938,1642,137040,301
Czechia1.7132,1611,611033,772
United Kingdom1.6529,1492,9173532,101
Lithuania1.6224,554930025,484
Belgium1.368,80329709,099
Luxembourg1.121,170001,170
Singapore1.1117020172
Dominica1.0653120533
Ireland0.925,2839605,378
Portugal0.8225,966553026,519
Netherlands0.65,2507205,322
Egypt0.564,772218695,059
Denmark0.55,7563105,787
San Marino0.017007
  Countries with high mean FLII (8-10)
  Countries with medium mean FLII (5-7.99)
  Countries with low mean FLII (0-4.99)


Use and applications

[edit]

Policy and reporting

[edit]

FLII has been referenced as a complementary indicator for monitoring ecological integrity, connectivity and ecosystem restoration under Target 2 of theKunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.[4]TheWorld Resources Institute'sGlobal Forest Review uses FLII as a measure offorest degradation in its synthesis of global forest change and condition.[3]

The 2023Forest Declaration Assessment includes "FLII units lost per year" as an indicator of forest degradation for tracking progress toward international forest goals.[7][8]

The European Commission'sJoint Research Centre has incorporated a Forest Landscape Integrity layer in itsGlobal Forest Types 2020 map product and related "primary forest" outputs.[9]

Research

[edit]

Researchers have used FLII to compare forest condition across governance and conservation regimes. For example, Szeet al. (2022) used FLII in a pan-tropical analysis of forest integrity across overlaps ofprotected areas andIndigenous peoples' lands.[10]

Croweet al. (2023) applied FLII to assess forest integrity within thousands ofKey Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), highlighting its potential role in monitoring the condition of biodiversity-important sites.[11]BirdLife International has used FLII-based analyses to communicate trends in forest integrity within KBAs identified for forest species.[12]

FLII has also been used as an input or comparison layer in composite integrity metrics and validation studies, including an ecosystem integrity index integrating multiple global datasets[13] and field-based evaluation of how FLII corresponds to ecological indicators in boreal forests.[14]

Standards and finance

[edit]

The High Integrity Forest (HIFOR) methodology incorporates FLII thresholds in eligibility criteria for "high integrity" forest areas in its monitoring framework.[15]

Limitations

[edit]

The original study described FLII as a conservative estimate and noted several limitations. Some pressures are difficult to map consistently at global scale (e.g. finer-scale infrastructure or small-scale extraction), and forest modification prior to 2000 may not be reflected in the underlying global datasets.[1]The authors also noted that the index does not explicitly account for all drivers of integrity loss (such asclimate change andinvasive species), and that the forest extent definition can include tree crops and plantations, which typically score as low integrity under the model.[1]

Data and availability

[edit]

An interactive map and downloadable data products (including continuous and classified layers) are provided via the project website.[16][17]

Background

[edit]

The FLII was first published on 8 December 2020 inNature Communications.[1]An author correction published in 2021 corrected an error in a protected-area table in the original article.[18]

The index was authored by a global team of forestconservation experts, including:[1]


InstitutionAuthor(s)
Wildlife Conservation Society,The BronxH.S. Grantham; A. Duncan; T. D. Evans; K. R. Jones; J. Walston; J. G. Robinson; M. Callow; T. Clements; H. M. Costa; A. DeGemmis; P. R. Elsen; P. Franco; S. Jupiter; A. Kang; S. Lieberman; M. Linkie; M. Mendez;C. Samper; J. Silverman; T. Stevens; E. Stokes; T. Tear; R. Tizard; S. Wang; J. E. M. Watson
University of Queensland,BrisbaneH. L. Beyer; S. Maxwell;H. Possingham; J. E. M. Watson
Carleton University,OttawaR. Schuster
Wildlife Conservation Society Canada,TorontoJ. C. Ray
United Nations Development Program,ManhattanJ. Ervin
World Resources Institute,Washington, DCE. Goldman; R. Taylor
Northern Arizona University,FlagstaffS. Goetz; P. Jantz
Montana State University,BozemanA. Hansen
Rainforest Foundation Norway,OsloE. Hofsvang
Global Wildlife Conservation,Austin, TexasP. Langhammer;R. Mittermeier
Arizona State University,Tempe, ArizonaP. Langhammer
James Cook University,CairnsW. F. Laurance; N. J. Murray
University of Oxford,OxfordY. Malhi
The Nature Conservancy,Arlington, VirginiaH. Possingham
Jet Propulsion Laboratory,Pasadena, CaliforniaS. Saatchi
World Wide Fund for Nature Germany,BerlinA. Shapiro
International Institute of Sustainability,Rio de JaneiroB. Strassburg
University of Northern British Columbia,Prince George, British ColumbiaO. Venter
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,Laxenburg, AustriaP. Visconti

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcdefghijklmnopqrstGrantham, H. S.; et al. (2020)."Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity".Nature Communications.11 (1) 5978.Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.5978G.doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3.PMC 7723057.PMID 33293507.
  2. ^"Forest Landscape Integrity Index".EarthMap. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  3. ^abc"Forest degradation".Global Forest Review. World Resources Institute. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  4. ^ab"Target 2".Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  5. ^Parrish, Jeffrey D.; Braun, David P.; Unnasch, Robert S. (2003). "Are We Conserving What We Say We Are? Measuring Ecological Integrity within Protected Areas".BioScience.53 (9):851–860.doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0851:AWCWWS]2.0.CO;2.
  6. ^Grantham, H. S.; Duncan, A.; Evans, T. D.; Jones, K. R.; Beyer, H. L.; Schuster, R.; Walston, J.; Ray, J. C.; Robinson, J. G.; Callow, M.; Clements, T.; Costa, H. M.; DeGemmis, A.; Elsen, P. R.; Ervin, J.; Franco, P.; Goldman, E.; Goetz, S.; Hansen, A.; Hofsvang, E.; Jantz, P.; Jupiter, S.; Kang, A.; Langhammer, P.; Laurance, W. F.; Lieberman, S.; Linkie, M.; Malhi, Y.; Maxwell, S.; Mendez, M.; Mittermeier, R.; Murray, N. J.; Possingham, H.; Radachowsky, J.; Saatchi, S.; Samper, C.; Silverman, J.; Shapiro, A.; Strassburg, B.; Stevens, T.; Stokes, E.; Taylor, R.; Tear, T.; Tizard, R.; Venter, O.; Visconti, P.; Wang, S.; Watson, J. E. M. (2020)."Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity - Supplementary Material".Nature Communications.11 (1): 5978.Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.5978G.doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3.ISSN 2041-1723.PMC 7723057.PMID 33293507.
  7. ^"Overarching forest goals: Theme 1 Assessment".Forest Declaration Assessment. 2023. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  8. ^2023 Forest Declaration Assessment report: Technical Annexes(PDF) (Report). Forest Declaration Assessment. 2023. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  9. ^"Global Forest Types 2020".European Commission – Joint Research Centre. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  10. ^Sze, Jocelyne S.; et al. (2022). "Indigenous lands in protected areas have high forest integrity across the tropics".Current Biology.32 (22): 4949–4956.e3.Bibcode:2022CBio...32E4949S.doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.09.040.
  11. ^Crowe, O.; et al. (2023)."A global assessment of forest integrity within Key Biodiversity Areas".Biological Conservation.286 110293.Bibcode:2023BCons.28610293C.doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110293. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  12. ^"Over half of forest within Key Biodiversity Areas identified for forest species no longer has high integrity".BirdLife DataZone. 31 January 2024. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  13. ^Dias, F.; et al. (2023). "An ecosystem integrity index for the global assessment of human impacts on ecosystems".Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.11.doi:10.3389/fevo.2023.1111947 (inactive 15 December 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2025 (link)
  14. ^Malcangi, Francesca; et al. (2024)."Correlation between mammal track abundance and Forest Landscape Integrity Index validates actual forest ecological integrity".Oecologia.206 (1–2):61–72.Bibcode:2024Oecol.206...61M.doi:10.1007/s00442-024-05613-z.PMC 11489168.PMID 39230725.
  15. ^HIFOR Methodology (English)(PDF) (Report). HIFOR. 2025. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  16. ^"Forest Landscape Integrity Index".Forest Landscape Integrity Index. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  17. ^"Forest Landscape Integrity Index – Further Information".Forest Landscape Integrity Index. Retrieved15 December 2025.
  18. ^Grantham, H. S.; et al. (2021). "Author Correction: Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity".Nature Communications.12 592.Bibcode:2021NatCo..12..592G.doi:10.1038/s41467-021-20999-7.PMID 33473136.

External links

[edit]
Deforestation
Illegal slash and burn in Madagascar
Desertification
Mitigation
Related articles
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forest_Landscape_Integrity_Index&oldid=1330864935"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp