The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth’s remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems
Open accessAbstract
Leading up to the Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties 15, there is momentum around setting bold conservation targets. Yet, it remains unclear how much of Earth's land area remains without significant human influence and where this land is located. We compare four recent global maps of human influences across Earth's land, Anthromes, Global Human Modification, Human Footprint and Low Impact Areas, to answer these questions. Despite using various methodologies and data, these different spatial assessments independently estimate similar percentages of the Earth's terrestrial surface as having very low (20%–34%) and low (48%–56%) human influence. Three out of four spatial assessments agree on 46% of the non‐permanent ice‐ or snow‐covered land as having low human influence. However, much of the very low and low influence portions of the planet are comprised of cold (e.g., boreal forests, montane grasslands and tundra) or arid (e.g., deserts) landscapes. Only four biomes (boreal forests, deserts, temperate coniferous forests and tundra) have a majority of datasets agreeing that at least half of their area has very low human influence. More concerning, <1% of temperate grasslands, tropical coniferous forests and tropical dry forests have very low human influence across most datasets, and tropical grasslands, mangroves and montane grasslands also have <1% of land identified as very low influence across all datasets. These findings suggest that about half of Earth's terrestrial surface has relatively low human influence and offers opportunities for proactive conservation actions to retain the last intact ecosystems on the planet. However, though the relative abundance of ecosystem areas with low human influence varies widely by biome, conserving these last intact areas should be a high priority before they are completely lost.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35002501 · Cited by 31,710
Anthropogenic land use estimates for the Holocene – HYDE 3.2
Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Doelman, J., & Stehfest, E. (2017) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-9-927-2017 · Cited by 1,204
Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people
Kremen, C., & Merenlender, A. M. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aau6020 · Cited by 1,125
A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets
Dinerstein, E., Vynne, C., Sala, E., Joshi, A. R., Fernando, S., Lovejoy, T. E., Mayorga, J., Olson, D., Asner, G. P., Baillie, J. E. M., et al. (2019) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869 · Cited by 792
Self-citationMapping the world's degraded lands
Gibbs, H. K., & Salmon, J. M. (2015) · Applied Geography · doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.024 · Cited by 753
Quantifying the evidence for ecological synergies
Darling, E. S., & Côté, I. M. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01243.x · Cited by 723
Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century
Krausmann, F., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Bondeau, A., Gaube, V., Lauk, C., Plutzar, C., & Searchinger, T. D. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211349110 · Cited by 666
Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets
Watson, J. E. M., Shanahan, D. F., Di Marco, M., Allan, J., Laurance, W. F., Sanderson, E. W., Mackey, B., & Venter, O. (2016) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049 · Cited by 483
Self-citationCombating deforestation: From satellite to intervention
Finer, M., Novoa, S., Weisse, M. J., Petersen, R., Mascaro, J., Souto, T., Stearns, F., & Martinez, R. G. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aat1203 · Cited by 177
The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet
Mehrabi, Z., Ellis, E. C., & Ramankutty, N. (2018) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0119-8 · Cited by 176
Self-citation
Cited by
Gupta, J., Bai, X., Liverman, D. M., Rockström, J., Qin, D., Stewart-Koster, B., Rocha, J. C., Jacobson, L., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., et al. (2024) · The Lancet Planetary Health · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(24)00042-1 · Cited by 197
Bohnett, E., Hoctor, T., O’Brien, M., Thompson, E., Smith, D. J., Frank, K., Oetting, J., & Noss, R. (2026) · Discover Conservation · doi:10.1007/s44353-026-00078-y
“Some global datasets include several variables not used in our Florida analysis (see [62] Table 1 for relevant comparison to global datasets), for example, forest cover change and irrigated area data were not explicitly included and represented by timberlands and the general croplands rankings.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Riggio, J., Baillie, J. E. M., Brumby, S., Ellis, E., Kennedy, C. M., Oakleaf, J. R., Tait, A., Tepe, T., Theobald, D. M., Venter, O., Watson, J. E. M., & Jacobson, A. P.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-06-05
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 4344-4356
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W3033248988
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 8.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth’s remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.15109
- The paper
- Riggio, J., Baillie, J. E. M., Brumby, S., Ellis, E., Kennedy, C. M., Oakleaf, J. R., Tait, A., Tepe, T., Theobald, D. M., Venter, O., Watson, J. E. M., & Jacobson, A. P. (2020). Global human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth’s remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15109
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.