Just 5 Percent of Earth's Landscape Is Untouched, Report Finds (axios.com) 88
A comprehensive new high-resolution analysis of human modification of the planet finds that just 5% of the Earth's land surface is currently unaffected by humans, far lower than a previous estimate of 19%. 95% of the Earth's land surface has some indication of human modification, while 84% has multiple human impacts, the study found. New Atlas reports: The researchers from The Nature Conservancy and Conservation Science Partners used publicly available, high-resolution data from ground surveys and remotely sensed imagery on land use in 1 square kilometer grids to provide a spatial assessment of the impact of 13 human-caused stressors across all terrestrial lands, biomes and ecological regions, including: Agriculture; The physical extent of human settlement; Transportation, including railroads and minor roads; Mining, energy production; and Electrical infrastructure, including power lines.
52% of ecological regions and 49% of countries are considered moderately modified. These regions are highly fragmented, retain up to only 50% of low modified lands and fall within critical land use thresholds. Only 30% of terrestrial ecological regions and 18% of the world's countries have a low degree of land modification and retain most of their natural lands, which are distant from human settlements, agriculture and other modified environments. The study found the least modified biomes tend to be in high latitudes and include tundra, boreal forests, or taiga and temperate coniferous forests. On the other hand, the most modified biomes include more tropical landscapes, such as temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, as well as mangroves.
52% of ecological regions and 49% of countries are considered moderately modified. These regions are highly fragmented, retain up to only 50% of low modified lands and fall within critical land use thresholds. Only 30% of terrestrial ecological regions and 18% of the world's countries have a low degree of land modification and retain most of their natural lands, which are distant from human settlements, agriculture and other modified environments. The study found the least modified biomes tend to be in high latitudes and include tundra, boreal forests, or taiga and temperate coniferous forests. On the other hand, the most modified biomes include more tropical landscapes, such as temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, as well as mangroves.
5%? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's still a surprisingly large amount. Still though, it would be better if we leave at least 10%-20% alone entirely. As the quote goes, "the planet doesn't need our help to survive, the planet needs our absence."
Re:5%? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just Antarctica + Greenland is already way over 5%. Vast areas of Siberia, Alaska, and Nunavut are uninhabited wilderness.
I would like to see a better explanation of their methodology.
Re: (Score:1)
Quite.
These people haven't overflown Australia have they..
Re: (Score:3)
Australia has been inhabited throughout, if sparsely, for tens of thousands of years.
Early inhabitants altered the ecosystem by sending megafauna to extinction, and lighting frequent fires, drastically changing forests.
Even before the recent introduction of farming, mining and towns, there was little or nothing of the landscape left "untouched".
Antarctica and Greenland are relatively virginal compared to Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
The "living in harmony" thing is not total BS. They did after a time reach a sustainable equilibrium.
We have no idea if or when industrial society will do that. Or if it is desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
The equilibrium that existed meant humans get to live and the large animals had to die. This has happened consistently everywhere men was introduced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, we killed off the elephants, and whales, and cattle, and rhinos. Oh, and I'm sure we were at fault for the dinosaurs too. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:1)
Existence is perpetual change. Get used to it.
Re: (Score:3)
But much of the remote land in Australia is still used for cattle grazing - in which case it won't count as "untouched".
Re: (Score:2)
Are they really used for cattle?
Yes, they are. Some are also used for sheep. Our dry climate and adapted ecosystems require a lot of space to support livestock, so there's a lot of massive pastoral leases on marginal land that nobody could find any other use for in the 1800s.
For example: Australian livestock stations over 4000 sq km in size [wikipedia.org]
The largest station (or "ranch") in the USA misses this list by nearly 1000 sq km. If the largest were its own country, Anna Creek [wikipedia.org], it'd be around 147 out of nearly 200 countries ranked by land area, be
Re: (Score:1)
Australia's ecosystem got screwed up a long time ago by artificially introducing foreign animals.
It isn't untouched.
Antarctica and Greenland are ice covered and as a result their landscape changes drastically by human introduced climate change.
Even Siberia is thawing.
Re: (Score:1)
Just Antarctica + Greenland is already way over 5%. Vast areas of Siberia, Alaska, and Nunavut are uninhabited wilderness.
I would like to see a better explanation of their methodology.
The word wasn't "uninhabited" the word was "unaffected" which means something completely different. Greenland, for example, has a vast loss of icesheets (depth; area sometimes increases as the ice sheet flows faster) and so large areas of Greenland, even where nobody has ever walked are affected. You could remotely measure changes, for example by seeing loss of reflectivity from glaciers that are covered in soot. You don't need detailed methodology to understand that uninhabited areas can be affected by
Re: (Score:2)
The word wasn't "uninhabited" the word was "unaffected...
Please read the subject line again.
Re: (Score:1)
They divided the world map in 20 squares. Human activity was not found in only one those squares, probably in Greenland. Solid methodology.
Re: (Score:2)
They divided the world map in 20 squares. Human activity was not found in only one those squares, probably in Greenland. Solid methodology.
I'd love to see a map of dividing a sphere into 20 squares.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see a map of dividing a sphere into 20 squares.
They were non-Euclidean squares.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see a better explanation of their methodology.
No, you fucking anti-science asshat, you wouldn't. If you had wanted to see it, you'd have read the linked article. Since you obviously don't care enough to put a lick of effort into educating yourself, I'll summarize for you, in the hopes you can at least make it through a /. comment:
We analyzed all terrestrial lands excluding Antarctica.
That said, the reason they can get to 5% is that they apply a "fragmentation metric" to the places with human impacts, and estimate them as falling off as you move away from where they find these impacts. They bin the human im
Re: (Score:2)
There is an Agenda here. Good luck on getting a rational explanation of the methodology. Probably something to do with essential oil residue or something. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
A million years of human history (Score:1)
I'd be surprised if humans haven't had an impact on most of the Earth's landmass.
Re: (Score:2)
Gentrification, Ho! (Score:3)
Where is this 5%? I bet the rents are still really cheap there.
Go to New Mexico (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But I'll bet that even in most of these remote desert areas, you'll find roads (or remains of roads) not far away. For fun, I like to visit Degree Confluence Points (http://www.confluence.org/), and I've been surprised at how easy most of them are to reach, even in supposedly remote patches of desert. I rarely have had to hike more than a couple of miles from a (admittedly, often 4WD) road.
Re:The definition of "affected by humans" is the k (Score:4, Interesting)
> I will hike or ride my mountain bike anywhere I damned well please and I don't give a rat's ass what some Prius-driving douche bag thinks about me doing it.
You know quite a lot of humanity considers mountain bike riding douche bags to be sharing their bag with prius driving douche bags..
Just pointing out reality.
I wonder if you are so ready to 'rock and roll' with the pickup driving shotgun toting types who dislike you both equally?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
>Don’t blame ME!
Step it up, dammit! You've got a lot of planet touching to do!
Re: (Score:2)
Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
What part of the Earth is untouched by ants? Fungus? Gophers? Butterflies? Is that good or bad? We must define some criteria that makes land preferable - furtile, healthy to live on, aestatically pleasing and so on. Complely free of humans does not strike me as a rational criteria.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Funny)
What part of the Earth is untouched by ants?
Cyanobacteria! Since they spewed their toxic oxygen into the atmosphere, nothing has been the same.
Re: (Score:1)
What part of the Earth is untouched by ants?
Antarctica, ironically.
And this is news? (Score:3)
It's a few hundred thousands years humans are reshaping the planet. Faster and faster as the technology allows.
And when you have a few billions of bare standing apes strolling all over the planet, actually all of it, it takes years to reshape it.
I can bet that only portions of the large deserts (hot or icy) are part of that 5%.
It's the LIFE, baby. (Score:2)
Before there were lichens and fungi to reshape the landscape.
Then came the plants, the amphibians, the reptiles, the birds, the mammals and Internet.
This is a duplicate so are we at 10% now ? (Score:3)
Or is it just a contest to see how many times Slashdot can dupe a story ?
Oh and once again Really ? (Score:2)
Just how much of Antarctica is impacted ?
Not only a dupe a fear mongering dupe.
5% Untouched is very misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that the stuff under an ocean is referred to as "land surface" by anyone, except, perhaps, you.
Re: (Score:2)
The way to prevent these sorts of measures from being misleading is to use the same criteria in both directions and give both numbers. i.e. Look at 1x1 km blocks and see what percentage contains s
Re: (Score:2)
What constitutes "touching," exactly? A backpacker walking across the land? An airplane flying over it? Smoke from a campfire wafting over it? Climate change?
By defining what "touching" means, you can pick a number from 0% to 50% untouched, just change the parameters.
Announcing a new tour service to untouched places! (Score:2)