IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p4063-d782552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Global Environmental Uncertainties Inevitable? Measuring Desertification for the SDGs

Author

Listed:
  • Alan Grainger

    (School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

Abstract

Continuing uncertainty about the present magnitudes of global environmental change phenomena limits scientific understanding of human impacts on Planet Earth, and the quality of scientific advice to policy makers on how to tackle these phenomena. Yet why global environmental uncertainties are so great, why they persist, how their magnitudes differ from one phenomenon to another, and whether they can be reduced is poorly understood. To address these questions, a new tool, the Uncertainty Assessment Framework (UAF), is proposed that builds on previous research by dividing sources of environmental uncertainty into categories linked to features inherent in phenomena, and insufficient capacity to conceptualize and measure phenomena. Applying the UAF shows that, based on its scale, complexity, areal variability and turnover time, desertification is one of the most inherently uncertain global environmental change phenomena. Present uncertainty about desertification is also very high and persistent: the Uncertainty Score of a time series of five estimates of the global extent of desertification shows limited change and has a mean of 6.8, on a scale from 0 to 8, based on the presence of four conceptualization uncertainties (terminological difficulties, underspecification, understructuralization and using proxies) and four measurement uncertainties (random errors, systemic errors, scalar deficiencies and using subjective judgment). This suggests that realization of the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Target 15.3 of the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15 (“Life on Land”) will be difficult to monitor in dry areas. None of the estimates in the time series has an Uncertainty Score of 2 when, according to the UAF, evaluation by statistical methods alone would be appropriate. This supports claims that statistical methods have limitations for evaluating very uncertain phenomena. Global environmental uncertainties could be reduced by devising better rules for constructing global environmental information which integrate conceptualization and measurement. A set of seven rules derived from the UAF is applied here to show how to measure desertification, demonstrating that uncertainty about it is not inevitable. Recent review articles have advocated using ‘big data’ to fill national data gaps in monitoring LDN and other SDG 15 targets, but an evaluation of a sample of three exemplar studies using the UAF still gives a mean Uncertainty Score of 4.7, so this approach will not be straightforward.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan Grainger, 2022. "Are Global Environmental Uncertainties Inevitable? Measuring Desertification for the SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-33, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4063-:d:782552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4063/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4063/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tiffen & Michael Mortimore, 2002. "Questioning desertification in dryland sub–Saharan Africa," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 26(3), pages 218-233, August.
    2. Salvati, Luca & Zitti, Marco, 2008. "Regional convergence of environmental variables: Empirical evidences from land degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 162-168, December.
    3. Tomislav Hengl & Jorge Mendes de Jesus & Gerard B M Heuvelink & Maria Ruiperez Gonzalez & Milan Kilibarda & Aleksandar Blagotić & Wei Shangguan & Marvin N Wright & Xiaoyuan Geng & Bernhard Bauer-Marsc, 2017. "SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-40, February.
    4. Grainger, Alan, 2017. "The prospect of global environmental relativities after an Anthropocene tipping point," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 36-49.
    5. Crawford, Sue E. S. & Ostrom, Elinor, 1995. "A Grammar of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 582-600, September.
    6. L. Salvati & C. Kosmas & O. Kairis & C. Karavitis & S. Acikalin & A. Belgacem & A. Sol�-Benet & M. Chaker & V. Fassouli & C. Gokceoglu & H. Gungor & R. Hessel & H. Khatteli & A. Kounalaki & A. Laouina, 2015. "Unveiling soil degradation and desertification risk in the Mediterranean basin: a data mining analysis of the relationships between biophysical and socioeconomic factors in agro-forest landscapes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(10), pages 1789-1803, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frimpong Boamah, Emmanuel, 2018. "Constitutional economics of Ghana’s decentralization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 256-267.
    2. Salvati, Luca & Carlucci, Margherita, 2011. "The economic and environmental performances of rural districts in Italy: Are competitiveness and sustainability compatible targets?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2446-2453.
    3. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    4. Linghua Qiu & Junhao He & Chao Yue & Philippe Ciais & Chunmiao Zheng, 2024. "Substantial terrestrial carbon emissions from global expansion of impervious surface area," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Saba Siddiki & Xavier Basurto & Christopher M. Weible, 2012. "Using the institutional grammar tool to understand regulatory compliance: The case of Colorado aquaculture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 167-188, June.
    6. Adam Martin & Matias Petersen, 2019. "Poverty Alleviation as an Economic Problem," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(1), pages 205-221.
    7. Telmo José Mendes & Diego Silva Siqueira & Eduardo Barretto Figueiredo & Ricardo de Oliveira Bordonal & Mara Regina Moitinho & José Marques Júnior & Newton La Scala Jr., 2021. "Soil carbon stock estimations: methods and a case study of the Maranhão State, Brazil," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16410-16427, November.
    8. Fernando Filgueiras & Pedro Palotti & Graziella G. Testa, 2023. "Complexing Governance Styles: Connecting Politics and Policy in Governance Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    9. Joachim Eisenberg & Fabrice A. Muvundja, 2020. "Quantification of Erosion in Selected Catchment Areas of the Ruzizi River (DRC) Using the (R)USLE Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Jean-François Bastin & Nicolas Latte & Jan Bogaert & Claude A. Garcia & Fabio Berzaghi & Fernando T. Maestre & Jens-Christian Svenning & Emeline Assede & Sabas Barima & Timothée Besisa & Samuel Boucho, 2025. "Global alternatives of natural vegetation cover," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Sarah R. Weiskopf & Forest Isbell & Maria Isabel Arce-Plata & Moreno Di Marco & Mike Harfoot & Justin Johnson & Susannah B. Lerman & Brian W. Miller & Toni Lyn Morelli & Akira S. Mori & Ensheng Weng &, 2024. "Biodiversity loss reduces global terrestrial carbon storage," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Chevuru, Sneha & Lamsal, Gambhir & (Rens) van Beek, L.P.H. & van Vliet, Michelle T.H. & Marston, Landon & Bierkens, Marc F.P., 2025. "Comparing crop growth models across the contiguous USA with a focus on dry and warm spells," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    13. Peter Bossew & Giorgia Cinelli & Giancarlo Ciotoli & Quentin G. Crowley & Marc De Cort & Javier Elío Medina & Valeria Gruber & Eric Petermann & Tore Tollefsen, 2020. "Development of a Geogenic Radon Hazard Index—Concept, History, Experiences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-23, June.
    14. Ravic Nijbroek & Kristin Piikki & Mats Söderström & Bas Kempen & Katrine G. Turner & Simeon Hengari & John Mutua, 2018. "Soil Organic Carbon Baselines for Land Degradation Neutrality: Map Accuracy and Cost Tradeoffs with Respect to Complexity in Otjozondjupa, Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Michiel A. Heldeweg, 2017. "Normative Alignment, Institutional Resilience and Shifts in Legal Governance of the Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-34, July.
    16. Christopher Weible & David Carter, 2015. "The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 207-231, June.
    17. Dunajevas Eugenijus & Skučienė Daiva, 2016. "Mandatory Pension System and Redistribution: The Comparative Analysis of Institutions in Baltic States," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 16-29, December.
    18. Dimitrios Zikos, 2020. "Revisiting the Role of Institutions in Transformative Contexts: Institutional Change and Conflicts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    19. Elinor Ostrom, 2014. "Do institutions for collective action evolve?," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 3-30, April.
    20. Fadil Sahiti, 2021. "Institutions and entrepreneurial activity: a comparative analysis of Kosovo and other economies," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(1), pages 98-119, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4063-:d:782552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.