Costs of land degradation and benefits of land restoration: a review of valuation methods and suggested frameworks for inclusion into policy-making.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Land degradation has become a growing concern with the current increase in demand for arable land. Sustainable land management and land restoration practices are required in order to meet the demands to provide food and other services. Adoption of improved practices has, however, not been widespread partly because of a lack of clarity on the true economic value and setting of proper financial incentives. This review focuses on the economic costs of land degradation as a prelude to two ongoing initiatives involving the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). We review how ecosystem services derived from land have been economically valued to date. Economic valuation has mostly focused on the use value of provisioning services and cultural services, with limited valuation of non-use value of cultural services. Also, no unique valuation method has been applied following methodological developments, varying study objectives and data availability constraints. These factors impair coherent and consistent estimation of the total economic value of land degradation across countries. We identify a need to develop harmonized valuation methods to estimate total economic value under strong data and capacity constraints. We propose two alternative frameworks for harmonized total economic valuation of land degradation at country level to guide further research in making environmental valuation more relevant and practical under strong data and capacity constraints.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it