Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement: An Introduction and Overview
Open accessAbstract
Land degradation is occurring in almost all terrestrial biomes and agro-ecologies, in both low and high income countries. However its impact is especially severe on the livelihoods of the poor who heavily depend on natural resources. Despite the severe impact of land degradation on the poor and the crucial role that land plays in human welfare and development, investments in sustainable land management (SLM) are low, especially in developing countries. This chapter summarizes the results from global and regional levels as well as 12 case study countries. The chapter also draws conclusions and implications for taking action against land degradation. Land degradation stretches to about 30 % of the total global land area and about three billion people reside in degraded lands. The annual global cost of land degradation due to land use/cover change (LUCC) and using land degrading management practices on static cropland and grazing land is about 300 billion USD. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) accounts for the largest share (22 %) of the total global cost of land degradation. Only about 46 % of the cost of land degradation due to LUCC—which accounts for 78 % of the US$300 billion loss—is borne by land users and the remaining share (54 %) is borne by consumers of ecosystem services off the farm. This further illustrates that land degradation is a global problem even though its impact is much greater on poor land users. The cost of taking action against land degradation is much lower than the cost of inaction and the returns to taking action are high. On average, one US dollar investment into restoration of degraded land returns five US dollars. This provides a strong incentive for taking action against land degradation. This study shows that simultaneously enhancing local and national level governments, land tenure security, and improving market access is the most effective strategy for addressing land degradation. Given that LUCC accounts for the largest share of cost of land degradation, t here is a need for developing land use planning that will ensure that forests and other high value biomes are effectively protected. Empirical evidence has shown that involvement of local communities in managing forests and other high value biomes and creating mechanisms for them to directly benefit from their conservation efforts lead to more effective protection than is the case with centralized protection. The assessment in this volume is being conducted at a time when there is an elevated interest in private land investments and when global efforts to achieve sustainable development objectives have intensified. This means, results of this volume will contribute significantly to the ongoing policy debate and efforts to design strategies for achieving sustainable development goals and other efforts to address land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A suite of case studies conducted in various settings across the world showed that each dollar invested into land restoration activities could yield between US$3 and $6 of societal economic returns, through both provisioning and nonprovisioning ecosystem services, over a 30-year period.
“A suite of case studies conducted in various settings across the world (124) showed that each dollar invested into land restoration activities could yield between US$3 and $6 of societal economic returns, through both provisioning and nonprovisioning ecosystem services, over a 30-year period (124).”
From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [124]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Amundson, R., Berhe, A., Hopmans, J., Olson, C., Sztein, A. E., Sparks, D. (2015). Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science, 348(6235). doi:10.1126/science.1261071 · DOI
- Asner, G. P., Elmore, A. J., Olander, L. P., Martin, R. E., & Harris, A. T. (2004). Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 29, 261-299.
- Coad, L., Campbell, A., Miles, L., & Humphries, K. (2008). The costs and benefits of forest protected areas for local livelihoods: A review of the current literature. UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre: Cambridge, UK. Commissao Pastoral da Terra (2008). Online at http://apps.unep.org/publications/pmtdocuments/Cost_benefits_protected_forests_ area.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2014.
- Lal, R. (1994). Sustainable land use systems and soil resilience, In D. J. Greenland & I. Szabolcs (Eds.), Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use (pp. 41-67). CAB-International, Wallingford, Oxon. UK.
- Lal, R. (2005). Encyclopaedia of soil science (Vol. 1). CRC Press.
- Lal, R. (2014). Societal value of soil carbon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 69(6), 186A-192A.
- Lal, R. (2015). Sequestering carbon and increasing productivity by conservation agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 70(3), 55A-62A.
- Lal, R., Singh, B. R., Mwaseba, D. L., Karybill, D., Hansen, D., & Eik, L. O. (2014). Sustainable intensification to advance food security and enhance climate resilience in Africa. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
- Lynch, G., & Crawford, G. (2011). Democratization in Africa 1990-2010: An assessment. Democratization, 18(2), 275-310.
- Dryland systems. In R. Hassan, R. Scholes, & N. Ash (Eds.), Ecosystem and well-being: Current state and trends (pp. 623-662). Washington, DC: Island Press.
- Nkonya, E., Pender, J., Benin, S., & Kato, E. (2008). Land rental markets and land management: Evidence from Uganda. In S. Holden, K. Otsuka, & F. Place (Eds.), Emerging land markets in Africa-implications for poverty, equity and efficiency. Washington, D.C.: Resources For the Future Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K.-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W. A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2021) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
“A suite of case studies conducted in various settings across the world (124) showed that each dollar invested into land restoration activities could yield between US$3 and $6 of societal economic returns, through both provisioning and nonprovisioning ecosystem services, over a 30-year period (124).”
BackgroundSelf-citation2016 Global Food Policy Report
Research Institute (IFPRI), I. F. P. (2016) · doi:10.2499/9780896295827 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., & von Braun, J.
- Affiliations
- International Food Policy Research Institute (US)
- University of Bonn (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Nkonya, Ephraim
- Venue
- Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2015-11-12
- Pages
- 1-14
- OpenAlex
- W2249021433
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 9 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 36.50
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Springer eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- IFPRI E-brary (International Food Policy Research Institute) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- International Food Policy Research Institute (International Food Policy Research Institute) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
- Keywords
- land degradation, land use and land cover change, sustainable land management, land restoration, ecosystem services, land tenure security, market access, community forestry, land use planning, sub-Saharan Africa, Sustainable Development Goals, biodiversity loss
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review