Global Land Subsidence: Impact of Climate Extremes and Human Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Globally, land subsidence (LS) often adversely impacts infrastructure, humans, and the environment. As climate change intensifies the terrestrial hydrologic cycle and severity of climate extremes, the interplay among extremes (e.g., floods, droughts, wildfires, etc.), LS, and their effects must be better understood since LS can alter the impacts of extreme events, and extreme events can drive LS. Furthermore, several processes causing subsidence (e.g., ice‐rich permafrost degradation, oxidation of organic matter) have been shown to also release greenhouse gases, accelerating climate change. Our review aims to synthesize these complex relationships, including human activities contributing to LS, and to identify the causes and rates of subsidence across diverse landscapes. We primarily focus on the era of synthetic aperture radar (SAR), which has significantly contributed to advancements in our understanding of ground deformations around the world. Ultimately, we identify gaps and opportunities to aid LS monitoring, mitigation, and adaptation strategies and guide interdisciplinary efforts to further our process‐based understanding of subsidence and associated climate feedbacks. We highlight the need to incorporate the interplay of extreme events, LS, and human activities into models, risk and vulnerability assessments, and management practices to develop improved mitigation and adaptation strategies as the global climate warms. Without consideration of such interplay and/or feedback loops, we may underestimate the enhancement of climate change and acceleration of LS across many regions, leaving communities unprepared for their ramifications. Proactive and interdisciplinary efforts should be leveraged to develop strategies and policies that mitigate or reverse anthropogenic LS and climate change impacts.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".