standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009
Abstract
object_of_studyconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagsRemotely-sensed and bottom-up survey information were compiled on eight variables measuring the direct and indirect human pressures on the environment globally in 1993 and 2009. This represents not only the most current information of its type, but also the first temporally-consistent set of Human Footprint maps. Data on human pressures were acquired or developed for: 1) built environments, 2) population density, 3) electric infrastructure, 4) crop lands, 5) pasture lands, 6) roads, 7) railways, and 8) navigable waterways. Pressures were then overlaid to create the standardized Human Footprint maps for all non-Antarctic land areas. A validation analysis using scored pressures from 3114×1 km 2 random sample plots revealed strong agreement with the Human Footprint maps. We anticipate that the Human Footprint maps will find a range of uses as proxies for human disturbance of natural systems. The updated maps should provide an increased understanding of the human pressures that drive macro-ecological patterns, as well as for tracking environmental change and informing conservation science and application.
Subject terms: Conservation biology, Environmental chemistry
Background & Summary
mechanisms↗limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationscontent_tags↗content_tags↗Human pressures on the environment are the actions taken by humans with the potential to harm nature 1 , 2 . Cumulative pressure mapping measures the breadth of these pressures by coupling top-down remote sensing of land cover change with data on additional human pressures collected ‘bottom-up’ through systematic surveys and modelling 3 , 4 . The method circumvents the limitations of using remote sensing alone, which has difficulty in detecting low intensity pressures 5 , such as linear infrastructures 6 and pasture lands 7 , and often confounds natural and anthropogenic land covers in arid and mosaic environments 8 .
limitationsconcepts↗claim_relationscontent_tagsCumulative pressure maps have been developed at regional 9 , 10 and global scales 11 , 12 . The ‘Human Footprint’ was first released in 2002 using data primarily from the early 1990s (approximately 1993) on eight human pressures globally, making it the most complete, highest resolution and globally-consistent terrestrial dataset on cumulative human pressures on the environment 13 . It has been used in a large number of ecological and conservation analyses, and still receives around 100 citations each year, particularly from its data users. However, the Human Footprint is a static and dated view of human pressures on the environment. With many of Earth’s systems experiencing pressures close to or beyond safe levels 14 , there is a strong need for an up-to-date understanding of the spatial and temporal trends in human pressures.
research_questioncontributionclaim_typeconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensesclaim_relationscontent_tagsHere we use the Human Footprint methodology 13 to compile remotely-sensed and bottom-up survey information on eight variables measuring the direct and indirect human pressures on the environment in 1993 and 2009. This synthesis represents not only the most current information of its type, but also the first temporally-consistent set of Human Footprint maps, allowing for analyses of change over time. We also provide the first validation of a cumulative pressure map by adopting methods from remote sensing 15 to visually interpret human pressures in high resolution (median=0.5 m) imagery from 3114 1 km 2 random sample plots globally ( Supplementary Appendix 1 ). We then determine the level of agreement between these visually interpreted pressures and those mapped by the Human Footprint.
phenomenonconcepts↗unhoused_relationscontent_tagsThe Human footprint maps provide information on where humans are exerting pressure on natural systems, altering them from their natural states. They also provide information on where these pressures are absent, and ecosystems are likely to be operating in a more natural state. These pressure-free lands represent candidate sites for consideration as ‘Wilderness’ 16 , 17 . The new Human Footprint maps have already been used to show that recent economic and population growth has far outstripped increases in the Human Footprint, yet the most biologically diverse regions of Earth have been disproportionately impacted 18 . We anticipate that the 1993 and 2009 Human Footprint maps will find a range of additional uses, such as serving as proxies for human disturbance and wilderness, including understanding the role of human pressures in driving macro-ecological patterns 19 , 20 , species extinction risk and distribution analyses 21 , dispersal ecology 22 , conservation science and decision making 23 , and tracking progress toward policy commitments to conservation 23 , among others.
Methods
Overview of methods for mapping the Human Footprint
method↗mechanisms↗mechanisms↗limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗claim_relationscontent_tagscontent_tags↗content_tagscontent_tags↗content_tags↗content_tags↗To create the Human Footprint maps we adopted the methods developed by Sanderson and colleagues 13 . Data on human pressures in 1993 and 2009 were collected or developed for: 1) the extent of built environments, 2) population density, 3) electric infrastructure, 4) crop lands, 5) pasture lands, 6) roads, 7) railways, and 8) navigable waterways, which are described in detail below ( Fig. 1 , step 1). To facilitate comparison across pressures we placed each human pressure within a 0–10 scale ( Fig. 1 , step 2), weighted within that range according to estimates of their relative levels of human pressure following Sanderson et al. 13 . The resulting standardized pressures were then summed together to create the standardized Human Footprint maps for all non-Antarctic land areas ( Fig. 1 , step 3). Pressures are not intended to be mutually exclusive, and many will co-occur in the same location. Three pressures only had data from a single time period, and these are treated as static in the Human Footprint maps.
Workflow of the Human Footprint approach to mapping cumulative human pressures on the environment.
content_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagsWe used ArcGIS 10.1 to integrate spatial data on human pressures. Analyses were conducted in Mollowedie equal area projection at the 1 km 2 resolution, yielding ~134.1 million pixels for Earth’s non-Antarctic terrestrial surface. For any grid cell, the Human Footprint can range between 0–50. The following sections and Table 1 (available online only) describe in detail the source data for each pressure, the processing steps applied, and the rationale behind the pressure weighting, and the output datasets created.
Summary of data inputs, manipulations and outputs in the Human Footprint workflow
Built environments
concepts↗concepts↗sensesconcept_edgescontent_tags↗content_tags↗Built environments are human produced areas that provide the setting for human activity. In the context of the human footprint, we take these areas to be primarily urban settings, including buildings, paved land and urban parks. Built environments do not provide viable habitats for many species of conservation concern, nor do they provide high levels of ecosystem services 24–27 . As such, built environments were assigned a pressure score of 10.
mechanisms↗controlsconcepts↗concepts↗To map built environments, we used the Defence Meteorological Satellite Program Operational Line Scanner (DMSP-OLS) composite images which gives the annual average brightness of 30 arc second (~1 km at the equator) pixels in units of digital numbers (DN) 28 . These data are provided for each year from 1992 to 2012. We extracted data for the years 1994 (1993 was excluded due to anomalies in the data), and 2009, and both datasets were then inter-calibrated to facilitate comparison 29 . Using the DMSP-OLS datasets, we considered pixels to be ‘built’ if they exhibited a calibrated DN greater than 20. We selected this threshold based on a global analyses of the implications of a range of thresholds for mapped extent of cities 30 , and visual validation against Landsat imagery for 10 cities spread globally.
limitationslimitationsconcepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationscontent_tagsThe DMSP-OLS has limitations for the purpose of mapping human settlements, including hyper sensitivity of the sensors causing detection of over-glow adjacent to built environments 30 and bright lights associated with gas flaring from oil production facilities 29 . However, no other data exist to map built environments in a consistent way globally over our time horizon. While other datasets provide a one year snap shot of urban extent, they cannot be compared across time due to large differences in the methodologies used 31–33 , and the wildly contrasting extents in mapped built environments.
Population density
Many of the pressures humans impose on the environment are proximate to their location, such as human disturbance, hunting and the persecution of non-desired species 34 . Moreover, even low-density human populations with limited technology and infrastructure developments can have significant impacts on biodiversity, as evidenced by the widespread loss of various taxa, particularly mega fauna, following human colonization of previously unpopulated areas 35 , 36 .
concepts↗concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tags↗Human population density was mapped using the Gridded Population of the World dataset developed by the Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESEN) 37 . The dataset provides a ~4 km×~4 km gridded summary of population census data for the years 1990 and 2010, which we downscaled using bilinear sampling in ArcGIS 10.1 to match the 1 km 2 resolution of the other datasets. For all locations with more than 1000 people·km −2 , we assigned a pressure score of 10 ( Table 2 ). For more sparsely populated areas with densities lower than 1000 people·km −2 , we logarithmically scaled the pressure score using,
Pressure scheme used to assign weights to the eight individual pressures in the Human Footprint maps.
mechanisms↗concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tags↗Human population density is scored in this way under the assumption that the pressures people induce on their local natural systems increase logarithmically with increasing population density, and saturate at a level of 1000 people per km 2 .
Night-time lights
concepts↗sensescontent_tags↗The high sensitivity of the DMSP-OLS 28 dataset provides a means for mapping the sparser electric infrastructure typical of more rural and suburban areas. In 2009, 79% of the lights registered in the DMSP-OLS dataset had a Digital Number less than 20, and are therefore not included in our ‘built environments’ layers. However, these lower DN values are often important human infrastructures, such as rural housing or working landscapes, with associated pressures on natural environments.
mechanisms↗concepts↗To include these pressures, we used the inter-calibrated DMSP-OLS layers 28 used for the built environments mapping. The equations for intercalibrating across years are second order quadratics trained using data from Sicily, which was chosen as it had negligible infrastructure change over this period and where DN average roughly 14 (ref. 28 ). For our purposes, DN values of six or less where excluded from consideration prior to calibration of data, as the shape of the quadratic function leads to severe distortion of very low DN values. The inter-calibrated DN data from 1994 were then rescaled using an equal quintile approach into a 0–10 scale ( Table 2 ). To scale the data, we divided the calibrated night light data into 10 equal sample bins (each bin with a DN greater than 1 contains the same number of pixels) based on the DN values and then assigned them scores of 1 through 10, starting with the lowest DN bin. DN values of 0 were assigned a score of 0. The thresholds used to bin the 1994 data where then used to convert the 2009 data into a comparable 0–10 scale.
Crop and pasture lands
concepts↗concepts↗content_tags↗Crop lands vary in their structure from intensely managed monocultures receiving high inputs of pesticides and fertilizers, to mosaic agricultures such as slash and burn methods that can support intermediate levels of natural values 38 , 39 . For the purposes of the human footprint, we focused only on intensive agriculture because of its greater direct pressure on the environment, as well as to circumvent the shortcomings of using remotely sensed data to map mosaic agriculture globally, namely the tendency to confound agriculture mosaics with natural woodland and savannah ecosystems 8 .
concept_edgesSpatial data on remotely sensed agriculture extent in 1992 were extracted from the UMD Land Cover Classification 40 , and for 2009 from GlobCover 41 . Although intensive agriculture often results in whole-scale ecosystem conversion, we gave it a pressure score of 7 ( Table 2 ), which is lower than built environments because of their less impervious cover.
concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsconcept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tags↗content_tagscontent_tags↗Pasture lands cover 22% of the Earth’s land base or almost twice that of agricultural crops 42 , making them the most extensive direct human pressure on the environment. Land grazed by domesticated herbivores is often degraded through a combination of fencing, intensive browsing, soil compaction, invasive grasses and other species, and altered fire regimes 43 . We mapped grazing lands for the year 2000 using a spatial dataset that combines agricultural census data with satellite derived land cover to map pasture extent 42 . We assigned pasture a pressure score of 4, which was then scaled from 0–4 using the percent pasture for each 1 km 2 pixel.
Roads and railways
concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensesconcept_edgesconcept_edgesconcept_edgescontent_tagsAs one of humanity’s most prolific linear infrastructures, roads are an important direct driver of habitat conversion 44 . Beyond simply reducing the extent of suitable habitat, roads can act as population sinks for many species through traffic induced mortality 45 . Roads also fragment otherwise contiguous blocks of habitat, and create edge effects such as reduced humidity 6 and increased fire frequency that reach well beyond the roads immediate footprint 46 . Finally, roads provide conduits for humans to access nature, bringing hunters and nature users into otherwise wilderness locations 47 .
mechanisms↗limitationsconcepts↗concept_edgescontent_tags↗We acquired data on the distribution of roads from gROADS 48 , and excluded all trails and private roads, which were inconsistently mapped, with only a subset of countries mapping their linear infrastructure to this resolution. The dataset is the most comprehensive publicly available database on roads, which compiles nationally mapped road data spanning the period 1980–2000 and has a spatial accuracy of around 500 m. The gROADS data do not include all minor roads, and therefore should be viewed as a map of the major roadways. We mapped the direct and indirect influence of roads by assigning an pressure score of 8 for 0.5 km out for either side of roads, and access pressures were awarded a score of 4 at 0.5 km and decaying exponentially out to 15 km either side of the road ( Table 2 ).
concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensesconcept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tags↗While railways are an important component of our global transport system, their pressure on the environment differs in nature from that of our road networks. By modifying a linear swath of habitat, railways exert direct pressure where they are constructed, similar to roads. However, as passengers seldom disembark from trains in places other than rail stations, railways do not provide a means of accessing the natural environments along their borders. To map railways we used the same dataset as was used in the original footprint 31 , as no update of this dataset or alternate source has been developed. The direct pressure of railways where assigned a pressure score of 8 for a distance of 0.5 km on either side of the railway.
Navigable waterways
concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsLike roads, coastlines and navigable rivers act as conduits for people to access nature. While all coastlines are theoretically navigable, for the purposes of the human footprint we only considered coasts 31 as navigable for 80 km either direction of signs of a human settlement, which were mapped as a night lights signal with a DN 28 greater than 6 within 4 km of the coast. We chose 80 km as an approximation of the distance a vessel can travel and return during daylight hours. As new settlements can arise to make new sections of coast navigable, coastal layers were generated for the years 1994 and 2009.
Large lakes can act essentially as inland seas, with their coasts frequently plied by trade and harvest vessels. Based on their size and visually identified shipping traffic and shore side settlements, we treated the great lakes of North America, Lake Nicaragua, Lake Titicaca in South America, Lakes Onega and Peipus in Russia, Lakes Balkash and Issyk Kul in Kazakhstan, and Lakes Victoria, Tanganyika and Malawi in Africa as we did navigable marine coasts.
content_tags↗Rivers were considered as navigable if their depth was greater than 2 m and there were signs of nighttime lights (DN>=6) within 4km of their banks, or if contiguous with a navigable coast or large inland lake, and then for a distance of 80 km or until stream depth is likely to prevent boat traffic ( Table 2 ). To map rivers and their depth we used the hydrosheds (hydrological data and maps based on shuttle elevation derivatives at multiple scales) 49 dataset on stream discharge, and the following formulae from 50 , 51 :
and
and
and
Assuming second order parabola as channel shape.
concepts↗concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tags↗Navigable rivers layers were created for the years 1994 and 2009, and combined with the navigable coasts and inland seas layers to create the final navigable waterways layers. The access pressure from navigable water bodies were awarded a score of 4 adjacent to the water body, decaying exponentially out to 15 km.
Data Records
concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗The 1 km 2 resolution, temporally-comparable Human Footprint maps [Data Citation 1] are stored in the Dryad Digital Repository, and may also be freely accessed through the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center website ( www.worldpop.org/data/ ). From Dryad the files may be downloaded as a single 7-zip file archive (7-Zip.org) which contains individual GeoTIFF datasets, an excel file with the validation data and a PDF with the validation key. The GeoTIFFs include the Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009 ( Fig. 2 ), as well 14 additional GeoTIFFs of the processed data for each of the eight pressures ( Fig. 1 , step 2) from each time step ( Tables 1 , 3 (available online only)). The individual pressure layers are provided should data users wish to rework these data to create alternate maps of human pressure for their particular needs or region.
The Human Footprint map for 2009, with panels showing regional overlays with the results of the validation plots.
The name, description and type of data included in the HumanFooptrint.zip file
Technical Validation
mechanisms↗limitationsconcepts↗High resolution images were used to visually interpret human pressures in 3460×1 km 2 sample plots randomly located across the Earth’s non-Antarctic land areas ( Fig. 3a ). Images for these plots were obtained from World Imagery 52 , which provides one meter or better satellite and aerial imagery in many parts of the world and lower resolution satellite imagery worldwide. The map features 0.3 m resolution imagery across the continental United States and parts of Western Europe, as well as many parts of the world, with concentrations in South America, Eastern Europe, India, Japan, the Middle East and Northern Africa, Southern Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. The imagery used for the validation plots had a median resolution of 0.5 meters and a median acquisition year of 2010. Comparable imagery was not available for the 1993 time period, and therefore only the 2009 map underwent validation.
Results from 3114×1 km 2 validation plots interpreted and scored following Supplementary Appendix 1 . ( a ) The location and visually interpreted pressure score for plots, and ( b ) the disagreement between the Human Footprint score and the visual validation score on a normalized 0–1 scale.
mechanisms↗controlsconcepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensescontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tags↗For the visual interpretation, the extent of built environments, crop lands, pasture lands, roads, human settlements, infrastructures and navigable waterways, were recorded using a standard key for identifying these features ( Supplementary Appendix 1 ). Shape, size, texture and colour of features in the imagery were important characteristics for identifying human pressures on the environment. Interpretations were also marked as ‘certain’ or ‘uncertain’, and the year and resolution of the interpreted image was recorded. The 346 ‘uncertain’ plots were discarded, leaving 3114 validation plots ( Fig. 3a ). In general, plots were classified as ‘uncertain’ for two reasons; either because cloud cover obscured the image, or because only medium resolution (15 m) imagery was available for the plot, preventing accurate interpretation of the image. The human footprint score for each plot was determined in ArcGIS, and the visual and Human Footprint scores were then normalized to a 0–1 scale. As we only retained plots for which visual interpretations of the images were determined to be ‘certain’, we consider the visual score to be the true state of in-situ pressures for the plots.
mechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tags↗content_tags↗content_tags↗content_tags↗Two statistics were used to determine Human Footprint performance, root mean squared error (RMSE) 53 and the Cohen kappa statistic of agreement 54 . The RMSE is a dimensioned (expresses average error in the units of variable of interest) error metric for numerical predictions, and tends to heavily punish large errors. The Kappa statistic expresses the agreement between two categorical datasets corrected for the expected agreement, which is based on a random allocation given the relative class sizes. When calculating the kappa statistic, the Human Footprint score was considered as a match to the visual score if they were within 20% of one another on the 0–1 scale.
limitationslimitationscontrolsconcepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensescontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagsThere is strong agreement between the Human Footprint measure of pressure and pressures scored by visual interpretation of high resolution imagery. The RMSE for the 3114 validation plots was 0.125 on the normalized 0–1 scale, indicating an average error of approximately 13%. The Kappa statistic was 0.737 ( P <0.01), also indicating good agreement between the Human Footprint and the validation dataset. Of the 3114×1 km 2 validation plots, the Human Footprint scored 94 of them 20% higher than the visual score and 263 of them 20% lower. The remaining 2757 plots (88.5%) were within 20% agreement. While this represents good agreement, it appears that the Human Footprint is to some extent susceptible to mapping pressures as absent in locations where they are actually present. The maps should therefore be considered as conservative estimates of human pressures on the environment. The Kappa statistic measure of agreement is sensitive to the threshold used to consider plots as a ‘match’. If we apply a more stringent threshold for agreement of within 15% of one another, the Kappa statistic falls to 0.565 (moderate agreement), and if we apply a less stringent threshold of within 25%, the Kappa statistic increases to 0.856 (very high agreement).
concepts↗content_tagsWhile agreement is generally strong, there is some geographic variation in the RMSE results comparing the Human Footprint scores and those derived from visual interpretation ( Fig. 3b ). By calculating RMSE for all biomes that contain at least 100 of the 3114 sample plots, we found that agreement was strongest in the Tundra biome and the Temperate grasslands, savannas and shrublands biomes ( Table 4 ). Agreement was weakest in the Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest biome and the Boreal.
Root Mean Square Errors results comparing the Human Footprint scores with 3114 validation plots globally, and for biomes with at least 100 plots within them.
Usage Notes
mechanisms↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsMapping human pressures to the environment is an essential first step to identifying priority areas for protection or restoration of natural systems. Understanding the spatial distribution of pressures, as well as their change through time, also provides insights for studies on macro-ecological patterns. The Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009 represent the first temporally-consistent maps of the human footprint, as well as much more up-to-date information on cumulative pressures than is currently available. Moreover, the 2009 Human Footprint map is the first cumulative pressure map to have undergone an accuracy assessment.
mechanisms↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensesThe individual pressure maps were developed to be globally consistent, using a scoring approach originally developed by Sanderson and colleagues 13 . However, in some regions and for some species groups, alternate scores may be better suited for reflecting the pressures exerted by humans on nature. We therefore provide the individual pressure layers that compose the Human Footprint maps, thereby allowing data developers to create alternate scoring schemes that better suit their purposes, as well facilitating the addition of new or alternate data sources.
limitationslimitationslimitationslimitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensesconcept_edgesconcept_edgescontent_tagsMoreover, our work is subject to three primary limitations. First, like all attempts to map cumulative pressures we did not fully account for all human pressures. Some of the missing and static pressures, such as invasive species and pollution, may be closely associated with pressures we did consider, and therefore their inclusion may not affect our overall results. Second, a lack of available data resulted in three of our pressures being static through time, which would cause an underestimation of Human Footprint expansion if these pressures expanded at a higher than average rate. Third, the Human Footprint measures the pressure humans place on nature, not the realized ‘state’ or ‘impacts’ on natural systems or their biodiversity. Significant scope exists to determine how natural systems respond to cumulating human pressures, and if non-linearity or thresholds exist where pressures lead to accelerated impacts.
concepts↗unhoused_relationssensescontent_tags↗While we welcome the opportunity to contribute intellectually and as co-authors to research projects that incorporate our datasets into their work, we make the data freely available without restriction for non-commercial use and redistribution. The data may be altered from their original form, and redistributed if done so free of charge and with a full description of any alterations to the original data. We do however ask that term ‘Human Footprint map’ be used only when referring to the unaltered data in the Human Footprint 7-zip file, and not to alternative versions of the data created by data users, and that the data be cited following the template at the end of this manuscript.
Additional information
How to cite this article: Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Sci. Data 3:160067 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.67 (2016).
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the Wildlife Conservation Society, James Cook University and the Australian Research Council DP110102872 and DE140101624. We thank Neil Burgess, Jonas Geldman, Michelle Venter, Todd Stevens, Dan Segan, Joe Walston, John Robinson, Kim Fisher for their thoughtful feedback on this work. We thank Christopher Small for help with the nightlights data, and Alex De Sherbinin for help with roads and population data.
Footnotes
Data Citations
References
Associated Data
Data Citations
Supplementary Materials
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 14 of 14 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | the spatial distribution and temporal change of cumulative human pressures across non-Antarctic terrestrial environments | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | how eight direct and indirect pressure layers can be standardized, combined, and validated as temporally comparable global Human Footprint maps | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | the first temporally consistent 1993 and 2009 Human Footprint map pair and the first visual validation of a cumulative pressure map | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | cumulative human pressure, disturbance, wilderness, and their macro-ecological and conservation consequences | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | computational-model also in: computational-model | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | Remote land-cover sensing is combined with systematically surveyed and modelled pressures to detect features either source alone misses. also in: top-down and bottom-up coupling | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Each input is placed on a common zero-to-ten scale before weighted summation. also in: pressure standardization | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Standardized co-occurring pressure layers are summed into a zero-to-fifty Human Footprint score. also in: weighted summation | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Pixels with calibrated digital number above twenty are treated as built environments. also in: DMSP-OLS threshold | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Population pressure rises logarithmically with density and saturates at one thousand people per square kilometre. also in: logarithmic scaling | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Night-light digital numbers are binned and rescaled into comparable zero-to-ten scores. also in: equal quintile approach | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Road and water access pressures decline exponentially to fifteen kilometres from the feature. also in: exponential access decay | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Independent image interpretation supplies reference pressure scores for random validation plots. | mechanisms[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Cloud-obscured and insufficient-resolution plots are discarded before agreement analysis. also in: certainty filter | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Mapped and visual scores are categorical matches when they differ by no more than twenty percent. also in: 20% match threshold | mechanisms[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Publishing components separately lets users construct region- or species-specific alternative scoring schemes. also in: individual pressure layers | mechanisms[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Consistent 1993 and 2009 layers make changes in cumulative pressure measurable through time. also in: temporal comparison | mechanisms[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Remote sensing alone has difficulty detecting low-intensity linear infrastructure and pasture and can confuse natural with anthropogenic cover. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The original Human Footprint was a static and dated early-1990s view. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Three pressure layers lacked a second time point and were treated as static. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | DMSP-OLS over-glow and gas flaring can be falsely detected as built environments. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | No alternative global settlement dataset was temporally comparable across the study horizon. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | gROADS omits minor roads and inconsistently mapped private roads and trails. | limitations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Comparable high-resolution imagery was unavailable for 1993, so only the 2009 map was validated. | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The map sometimes records pressures as absent where visual validation finds them, making it conservative. | limitations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Kappa agreement depends strongly on the chosen match threshold. | limitations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The mapping does not include every human pressure, including some invasive species and pollution. | limitations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Static layers can underestimate expansion when those pressures grow faster than average. | limitations[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Human Footprint measures pressure rather than realized ecosystem state or biodiversity impact. | limitations[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Responses may be nonlinear or exhibit thresholds that accelerate impacts, which the dataset does not determine. | limitations[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | uncertain validation plots eliminates: cloud-obscured or insufficient-resolution visual interpretations · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | 15% and 25% match thresholds eliminates: dependence of the agreement verdict on the default 20% threshold · outcome: partial | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | Landsat imagery for 10 cities eliminates: unsupported selection of the built-environment brightness threshold | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | Human pressures on the environment also in: Human pressures on the environment | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | cumulative pressure mapping also in: cumulative pressure mapping | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | top-down remote sensing also in: top-down remote sensing | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | bottom-up also in: bottom-up | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Human Footprint also in: Human Footprint | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Human Footprint maps also in: Human Footprint maps | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | human disturbance also in: human disturbance | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | macro-ecological patterns also in: macro-ecological patterns | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | remote sensing also in: remote sensing | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | direct and indirect human pressures also in: direct and indirect human pressures | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | visually interpret human pressures also in: visually interpret human pressures | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Wilderness also in: Wilderness | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | standardized pressures also in: standardized pressures | concepts[12] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | built environments also in: built environments | concepts[13] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pressure score also in: pressure score | concepts[14] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | DMSP-OLS also in: DMSP-OLS | concepts[15] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | digital numbers also in: digital numbers | concepts[16] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | over-glow also in: over-glow | concepts[17] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | gas flaring also in: gas flaring | concepts[18] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | human population density also in: human population density | concepts[19] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Gridded Population of the World also in: Gridded Population of the World | concepts[20] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | human pressures also in: human pressures | concepts[21] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pressures people induce on their local natural systems | concepts[22] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | electric infrastructure also in: electric infrastructure | concepts[23] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | equal quintile approach also in: equal quintile approach | concepts[24] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | crop lands also in: crop lands | concepts[25] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | intensive agriculture also in: intensive agriculture | concepts[26] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pasture lands also in: pasture lands | concepts[27] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | direct human pressure also in: direct human pressure | concepts[28] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | roads also in: roads | concepts[29] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | population sinks also in: population sinks | concepts[30] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | habitat conversion also in: habitat conversion | concepts[31] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | humidity also in: humidity | concepts[32] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | fire frequency also in: fire frequency | concepts[33] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | gROADS also in: gROADS | concepts[34] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | railways also in: railways | concepts[35] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | direct pressure also in: direct pressure | concepts[36] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | navigable waterways also in: navigable waterways | concepts[37] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | navigable rivers also in: navigable rivers | concepts[38] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Rivers also in: Rivers | concepts[39] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | nature also in: nature | concepts[40] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Dryad Digital Repository also in: Dryad Digital Repository | concepts[41] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | GeoTIFF datasets also in: GeoTIFF datasets | concepts[42] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | individual pressure layers also in: individual pressure layers | concepts[43] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | high resolution images also in: high resolution images | concepts[44] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | visual score also in: visual score | concepts[45] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | uncertain also in: uncertain | concepts[46] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | RMSE also in: RMSE | concepts[47] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | error metric also in: error metric | concepts[48] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Kappa statistic also in: Kappa statistic | concepts[49] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Human Footprint performance also in: Human Footprint performance | concepts[50] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | strong agreement also in: strong agreement | concepts[51] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conservative estimates also in: conservative estimates | concepts[52] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | geographic variation also in: geographic variation | concepts[53] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | priority areas also in: priority areas | concepts[54] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | alternate scoring schemes also in: alternate scoring schemes | concepts[55] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | realized ‘state’ also in: realized ‘state’ | concepts[56] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ‘impacts’ on natural systems also in: ‘impacts’ on natural systems | concepts[57] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | invasive species also in: invasive species | concepts[58] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pollution also in: pollution | concepts[59] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | non-linearity also in: non-linearity | concepts[60] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | thresholds also in: thresholds | concepts[61] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | static also in: static | concepts[62] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Human Footprint map also in: Human Footprint map | concepts[63] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Sanderson and colleagues also in: Sanderson and colleagues | concepts[64] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | cumulative pressure map also in: cumulative pressure map | concepts[65] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | cumulative pressure mapping → remote sensing Coupling remote sensing with surveyed and modelled data circumvents the limits of remote sensing alone. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Human Footprint maps → human disturbance The maps are intended as proxies for human disturbance. | unhoused_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Human Footprint maps → Wilderness Pressure-free map cells identify candidate wilderness sites. | unhoused_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | DMSP-OLS → over-glow Sensor hypersensitivity detects over-glow adjacent to built environments. | unhoused_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | DMSP-OLS → gas flaring Bright gas-flaring signals can be confused with built environments. | unhoused_relations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | pasture lands → direct human pressure Pasture is the most extensive direct pressure and degradation combines fencing, browsing, compaction, invasive species, and altered fire. | unhoused_relations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | roads → population sinks Roads can act as population sinks through traffic-induced mortality. | unhoused_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | railways → direct pressure Railways exert direct pressure but do not enable access along most borders. | unhoused_relations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Rivers → nature Navigable rivers act as access conduits into nature. | unhoused_relations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | individual pressure layers → alternate scoring schemes Published component layers allow developers to construct alternative scores. | unhoused_relations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | uncertain → visual score Discarding uncertain plots protects the visual score from cloud and coarse-resolution errors. | unhoused_relations[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Human Footprint maps → conservative estimates Missing present pressures makes the maps conservative estimates. | unhoused_relations[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | thresholds → Kappa statistic Changing the match threshold changes the Kappa statistic substantially. | unhoused_relations[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | static → Human Footprint Static pressure layers can underestimate Human Footprint expansion. | unhoused_relations[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Human Footprint → non-linearity The dataset leaves open whether natural-system responses are nonlinear or thresholded. | unhoused_relations[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Human Footprint → thresholds The dataset leaves open whether thresholds produce accelerated impacts. | unhoused_relations[15] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Human Footprint maps → priority areas Mapping pressures is a first step toward identifying protection or restoration priorities. | unhoused_relations[16] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Human Footprint map → Human Footprint maps The authors reserve the singular name for unaltered distributed data, not user-created alternatives. | unhoused_relations[17] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Human Footprint as cumulative pressure rather than ecological state or impact | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | temporally consistent as comparable methodology across 1993 and 2009 | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | built environment as urban buildings, paving, and parks | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | night lights as sparse electric infrastructure outside the built threshold | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | roads as direct, edge-effect, and access pressures | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | railways as direct pressure without broad access pressure | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | visual validation as high-resolution independent plot interpretation | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | conservative map as more likely to omit a present pressure than invent one | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | pressure layers as reusable ingredients for alternate local scores | senses[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Human Footprint map name reserved for the unaltered distributed data | senses[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Sanderson and colleagues note: The map explicitly adopts the earlier Human Footprint method. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Human Footprint note: The paper updates the static early-1990s release into a comparable time series. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | validates → cumulative pressure map note: The article reports the first validation of this map class. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | built environments —operationalised-as→ pressure score the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Exact assigned score. · the relation stated: Built environments are assigned a pressure score of 10. also in: built environments · pressure score | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | human population density —operationalised-as→ pressure score the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Exact thresholded scoring rule. · the relation stated: Population density is mapped into a pressure score that reaches 10 above 1000 people per square kilometre. also in: human population density · pressure score | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | crop lands —operationalised-as→ pressure score the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Exact assigned score. · the relation stated: Intensive crop land is assigned a pressure score of 7.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'intensive agriculture', not 'crop lands' (named earlier in the section). also in: crop lands · pressure score | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | pasture lands —operationalised-as→ pressure score the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Exact scaled score. · the relation stated: Pasture is assigned a pressure score up to 4 according to percent pasture. also in: pasture lands · pressure score | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | roads —operationalised-as→ pressure score the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Exact distance-dependent score. · the relation stated: Road pressure is scored 8 directly and 4 for access before exponential decay. also in: roads · pressure score | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | railways —operationalised-as→ pressure score the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Exact distance-dependent score. · the relation stated: Railway direct pressure is assigned a score of 8 within half a kilometre. also in: railways · pressure score | concept_edges[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | navigable waterways —operationalised-as→ pressure score the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Exact distance-dependent score. · the relation stated: Navigable-water access pressure is assigned a score of 4 and decays to 15 km.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'awarded a score of 4', not 'pressure score'. also in: navigable waterways · pressure score | concept_edges[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | human population density —causes→ pressures people induce on their local natural systems direction on the measure: increases · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: Explicitly stated as an assumption rather than a measured causal result. · the relation stated: The scoring assumes pressures increase logarithmically with increasing population density.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span states this as the modelling ASSUMPTION behind the score. | concept_edges[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | roads —causes→ habitat conversion direction on the measure: increases · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Flat positive causal claim. · the relation stated: Roads are an important direct driver of habitat conversion. also in: roads · habitat conversion | concept_edges[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | roads —causes→ humidity direction on the measure: reduces · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Flat negative effect with the sign preserved. · the relation stated: Road edge effects reduce humidity beyond the immediate footprint. | concept_edges[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | roads —causes→ fire frequency direction on the measure: increases · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Flat positive effect with the sign preserved. · the relation stated: Road edge effects increase fire frequency. also in: roads · fire frequency | concept_edges[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | RMSE —is-a→ error metric the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Direct categorical definition. · the relation stated: RMSE is a dimensioned error metric for numerical predictions. also in: RMSE · error metric | concept_edges[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Human Footprint maps —distinct-from→ realized ‘state’ the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Flat explicit distinction. · the relation stated: The Human Footprint measures human pressure, not the realized state of natural systems.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'the Human Footprint', not 'Human Footprint maps'. also in: Human Footprint maps · realized ‘state’ | concept_edges[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Human Footprint maps —distinct-from→ ‘impacts’ on natural systems the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Flat explicit distinction. · the relation stated: The Human Footprint measures pressure, not impacts on natural systems.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'the Human Footprint', not 'Human Footprint maps'. also in: Human Footprint maps · ‘impacts’ on natural systems | concept_edges[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The maps are the first temporally consistent global Human Footprint series for 1993 and 2009. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Visual scores from 3,114 one-square-kilometre plots strongly agree with the mapped Human Footprint. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The original Human Footprint remained widely used but was a static and dated view of pressure. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The new maps support change-over-time analysis and supply the first validation of a cumulative pressure map. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Recent economic and population growth greatly exceeded Human Footprint growth, while biodiverse regions were disproportionately affected. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Eight standardized pressure layers were summed, with overlapping pressures allowed to co-occur. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The non-Antarctic terrestrial analysis contains about 134.1 million one-square-kilometre pixels. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | DMSP-OLS is temporally consistent but over-detects glow and gas flaring near settlements. | content_tags.findings[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Pasture is the most extensive direct human pressure and covers 22 percent of Earth's land base. | content_tags.findings[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Roads drive conversion, mortality, fragmentation, edge effects, and human access to nature. | content_tags.findings[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Railways exert direct pressure but do not provide broad access along their borders. | content_tags.findings[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The retained visual validation plots excluded cloud-obscured and insufficient-resolution imagery. | content_tags.findings[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Validation produced RMSE 0.125, Kappa 0.737, and 88.5 percent of plots within 20 percent agreement. | content_tags.findings[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The map tends to miss pressures that are present and should be treated as a conservative estimate. | content_tags.findings[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Agreement varies geographically and is weakest in temperate broadleaf/mixed forest and boreal biomes. | content_tags.findings[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The dataset measures human pressure rather than realized ecosystem state or biodiversity impacts. | content_tags.findings[15] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | human actions with the potential to harm nature also in: human pressures on the environment | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | coupling remote sensing of land-cover change with surveyed and modelled pressure data also in: cumulative pressure mapping | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a standardized cumulative measure formed from eight direct and indirect human-pressure layers also in: Human Footprint | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | human-produced urban settings including buildings, paved land, and urban parks also in: built environments | content_tags.definitions[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | gridded local human population used as a pressure proxy also in: population density | content_tags.definitions[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | DMSP-OLS brightness used to represent sparse electric infrastructure also in: night-time lights | content_tags.definitions[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | intensively managed agricultural areas treated as direct environmental pressure also in: crop lands | content_tags.definitions[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | grazed lands affected by fencing, browsing, compaction, invasive species, and altered fire also in: pasture lands | content_tags.definitions[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | rivers deep enough for vessels and connected to lights, coasts, or inland lakes also in: navigable rivers | content_tags.definitions[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a dimensioned numerical-prediction error metric that heavily penalizes large errors also in: RMSE | content_tags.definitions[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | agreement between categorical datasets corrected for expected random agreement also in: Kappa statistic | content_tags.definitions[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the authors' requested name for only the unaltered data in the distributed archive also in: Human Footprint map | content_tags.definitions[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | eight — direct and indirect human-pressure variables | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1993 and 2009 — two temporally comparable map years | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0–10 — standardized scale for each individual pressure | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0–50 — possible total Human Footprint range per grid cell | content_tags.quantities[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ~134.1 million pixels — one-square-kilometre cells covering non-Antarctic land | content_tags.quantities[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 22% — share of Earth's land base covered by pasture | content_tags.quantities[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 3114 — retained validation plots | content_tags.quantities[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.125 — global normalized RMSE | content_tags.quantities[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.737 — Kappa at the 20-percent match threshold | content_tags.quantities[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 88.5% — validation plots within 20-percent agreement | content_tags.quantities[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.565 — Kappa at the stricter 15-percent threshold | content_tags.quantities[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.856 — Kappa at the looser 25-percent threshold | content_tags.quantities[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | built environments also in: built environments | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | population density also in: population density | content_tags.variables[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | electric infrastructure also in: electric infrastructure | content_tags.variables[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | crop lands also in: crop lands | content_tags.variables[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | pasture lands also in: pasture lands | content_tags.variables[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | roads also in: roads | content_tags.variables[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | railways also in: railways | content_tags.variables[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | navigable waterways also in: navigable waterways | content_tags.variables[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | pressure score also in: pressure score | content_tags.variables[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | visual score also in: visual score | content_tags.variables[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | RMSE also in: RMSE | content_tags.variables[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Kappa statistic also in: Kappa statistic | content_tags.variables[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.