SpatioTemporal Asset Catalog (STAC) Item - hansen-gfc-2023-v1.11-80N-170W in glad-global-forest-change-1.11

OverviewThis data set, a collaboration between the GLAD (Global Land Analysis & Discovery) lab at the University of Maryland, Google, USGS, and NASA, measures areas of tree cover loss across all global land (except Antarctica and other Arctic islands) at approximately 30 × 30 meter resolution. The data were generated using multispectral satellite imagery from the Landsat 5 thematic mapper (TM), the Landsat 7 thematic mapper plus (ETM+), and the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) sensors. Over 1 million satellite images were processed and analyzed, including over 600,000 Landsat 7 images for the 2000-2012 interval, and more than 400,000 Landsat 5, 7, and 8 images for updates for the 2011-2020 interval. The clear land surface observations in the satellite images were assembled and a supervised learning algorithm was applied to identify per pixel tree cover loss. In this data set, “tree cover” is defined as all vegetation greater than 5 meters in height, and may take the form of natural forests or plantations across a range of canopy densities. Tree cover loss is defined as “stand replacement disturbance,” or the complete removal of tree cover canopy at the Landsat pixel scale. Tree cover loss may be the result of human activities, including forestry practices such as timber harvesting or deforestation (the conversion of natural forest to other land uses), as well as natural causes such as disease or storm damage. Fire is another widespread cause of tree cover loss, and can be either natural or human-induced. This data set has been updated five times since its creation, and now includes loss up to 2020 (Version 1.8). The analysis method has been modified in numerous ways, including new data for the target year, re-processed data for previous years (2011 and 2012 for the Version 1.1 update, 2012 and 2013 for the Version 1.2 update, and 2014 for the Version 1.3 update), and improved modelling and calibration. These modifications improve change detection for 2011-2020, including better detection of boreal loss due to fire, smallholder rotation agriculture in tropical forests, selective logging, and short cycle plantations. Eventually, a future “Version 2.0” will include reprocessing for 2000-2010 data, but in the meantime integrated use of the original data and Version 1.8 should be performed with caution. Read more about the Version 1.8 update here. When zoomed out (< zoom level 13), pixels of loss are shaded according to the density of loss at the 30 x 30 meter scale. Pixels with darker shading represent areas with a higher concentration of tree cover loss, whereas pixels with lighter shading indicate a lower concentration of tree cover loss. There is no variation in pixel shading when the data is at full resolution (≥ zoom level 13). The tree cover canopy density of the displayed data varies according to the selection - use the legend on the map to change the minimum tree cover canopy density threshold.Frequency of updates: AnnualDate of content: 2001-2020Resolution: 30x30m

This data set, a collaboration between the GLAD (Global Land Analysis & Discovery) lab at the University of Maryland, Google, USGS, and NASA, measures areas of tree cover loss across all global land (except Antarctica and other Arctic islands) at approximately 30 × 30 meter resolution. The data were generated using multispectral satellite imagery from the Landsat 5 thematic mapper (TM), the Landsat 7 thematic mapper plus (ETM+), and the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) sensors. Over 1 million satellite images were processed and analyzed, including over 600,000 Landsat 7 images for the 2000-2012 interval, and more than 400,000 Landsat 5, 7, and 8 images for updates for the 2011-2022 interval. The clear land surface observations in the satellite images were assembled and a supervised learning algorithm was applied to identify per pixel tree cover loss.In this data set, “tree cover” is defined as all vegetation greater than 5 meters in height, and may take the form of natural forests or plantations across a range of canopy densities. Tree cover loss is defined as “stand replacement disturbance,” or the complete removal of tree cover canopy at the Landsat pixel scale. Tree cover loss may be the result of human activities, including forestry practices such as timber harvesting or deforestation (the conversion of natural forest to other land uses), as well as natural causes such as disease or storm damage. Fire is another widespread cause of tree cover loss, and can be either natural or human-induced.This data set has been updated five times since its creation, and now includes loss up to 2022 (Version 1.10). The analysis method has been modified in numerous ways, including new data for the target year, re-processed data for previous years (2011 and 2012 for the Version 1.1 update, 2012 and 2013 for the Version 1.2 update, and 2014 for the Version 1.3 update), and improved modelling and calibration. These modifications improve change detection for 2011-2022, including better detection of boreal loss due to fire, smallholder rotation agriculture in tropical forests, selective losing, and short cycle plantations. Eventually, a future “Version 2.0” will include reprocessing for 2000-2010 data, but in the meantime integrated use of the original data and Version 1.7 should be performed with caution. Read more about the Version 1.7 update here.When zoomed out (< zoom level 13), pixels of loss are shaded according to the density of loss at the 30 x 30 meter scale. Pixels with darker shading represent areas with a higher concentration of tree cover loss, whereas pixels with lighter shading indicate a lower concentration of tree cover loss. There is no variation in pixel shading when the data is at full resolution (≥ zoom level 13).The tree cover canopy density of the displayed data varies according to the selection - use the legend on the map to change the minimum tree cover canopy density threshold.

Results from time-series analysis of Landsat images in characterizing global forest extent and change. The 'first' and 'last' bands are reference multispectral imagery from the first and last available years for Landsat spectral bands corresponding to red, NIR, SWIR1, and SWIR2. Reference composite imagery represents median observations from a set of quality-assessed growing-season observations for each of these bands. Please see the User Notes for this update, as well as the associated journal article: Hansen, Potapov, Moore, Hancher et al. "High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change." Science 342.6160 (2013): 850-853.

To advance our understanding of forest cover changes, given the discrepancies, this work providesan original analysis by assessing five available remote sensing datasets (ALOS PALSAR forest and non-forest data, ESA CCI Land Cover, MODIS IGBP, Hansen/GFW on global tree cover loss, and Terra-I) toestimate the likely extent of current forests (circa 2018) and forest cover loss from 2001-2018, forwhich data was available. This assumes that no single approach or data source can capture majortrends everywhere; therefore, an all-available data approach is needed to overcome shortcomings ofindividual datasets. The main shortcomings of this approach, however, are that it does not account for forest gains, tends tounderestimate the conversion in dry forests ecosystems and lacks explicit assessment ofuncertainties across the different datasets.“Forest cover loss” in the all-available data analysis consists of observations (pixels) changing fromforest to non-forest at any time during 2000 to 2018. The spatial resolution chosen was 250m giventhe original resolutions of the datasets incorporated and on the understanding that forest areasshould be a minimum of 250 x250m (6.25 ha) to contain the functional attributes of a forest (e.g.species distribution, ecology, ecosystem services), rather than depicting individual trees or groups oftrees.According to our analysis, about 20% of total forest cover loss takes place in core forest, which welabel “primary forest loss”, while the remaining 80% results from the conversion of edge andpatched forests, which is labelled as “secondary forest loss”. Two thirds of total forest cover loss inthe period from 2000-2018 occurred in the tropics and subtropics, followed by boreal and temperateforests. A portion of the loss in temperate and boreal forests will not be permanent and might referto other types of natural forest disturbances produced by insects, fire, and severe weather, as wellas by felling of plantations or semi-natural forests as part of forest management.Much tropical forest cover loss is in South America and Asia, while subtropical forest cover loss ismainly in South America and Africa. When looking at countries by income levels, as defined by theWorld Bank, much of deforestation takes place in upper middle and lower middle-income countries.To the risk of simplifying, this suggests an increasing pressure on forests in the transition that occurswhen countries increase economic development. In the tropics, upper-middle income countriesdominate forest cover loss in South America, due to the influence of Brazil, and lower middle-income countries in Asia, due to the influence of Indonesia. Forest cover loss in the subtropics occursmainly in Brazil and Argentina in South America, many lower-middle income countries in SouthAmerica, and lower-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Most temperate and boreal forest coverloss, likely not all permanent, occurs in high-income countries (Russia), and North America (UnitedStates and Canada) Unfortunately, this data does not identify changes over time or land use interactions amongcountries. Reduced forest cover loss in some mainly high-income countries, except North America, isassociated with forest cover loss, particularly in lower- and upper-middle countries in the tropics. Interactions are informed by the “forest transition” effect. Forest transition dynamics occur whennet forest restoration replaces net forest cover loss in some specific place. The countries thatunderwent a forest transition that reduced forest loss and encouraged regrowth may have placedadditional pressure on forests outside their borders, thus displacing deforestation. The debate onforest transitions and leakage is quite controversial given its policy implications.Recent analysis, based on a land-balance model that quantifies deforestation due to global trade atcountry level in the tropics and sub-tropics, linked to a country-to-country trade model, found thatfrom 2005-2013, 62% of forest loss was caused by commercial agriculture, pasture and plantations.About 26% of total deforestation was attributed to international demand, 87% of which wasexported to countries with decreasing deforestation or increasing forest cover in Europe and Asia(i.e. China, India). Some of this displacement pressure may be reduced by land intensification. Global patterns of forest fragmentationIn this analysis we consider forest degradation alongside forest cover loss. Degradation is a multi-factorial phenomenon that includes amongst others loss of native species, appearance of invasivespecies, pollution damage, structural changes, selective timber removal and many more. Here weuse fragmentation as a proxy that can be detected through remote sensing; this is a critical aspect offorest degradation but does not capture all aspects. The change in spatial pattern and structure byfragmentation of forest into smaller patches or “islands” damages forest ecosystem services such ascarbon storage and climate mitigation, regulation, water provision, and habitat for biodiversity. These impacts are created by changes at forest edges, which include increased exposure to differentclimate, fire, wind, mortality, and human access. The increasing isolation of forest patchescontributes to long-term changes in biodiversity, including species richness and productivity,creating fundamental changes in forest ecosystems.We evaluated the fragmentation of forests using morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA)assessed on the two all-available data global forest cover maps corresponding to 2000 and 2018, todetermine forest cover transitions between different type of fragmentation classes (i.e. stable core,inner edges, outer edges, and patches). Changes between fragmentation classes over time aredefined as primary and secondary degradation based on their initial state, in contrast to forestswhich remain in the same fragmentation class as stable core, inner edge, outer edge, and patch. Inthis definition, primary degradation is a result of the fragmentation of core forests into forest withmore edges, reducing the area of continuous forest extent, and resulting in greater losses of carbonand associated ecosystem services such as biodiversity present in intact forests. Secondarydegradation is the conversion of edge forests into more fragmented classes, occurring in secondaryforests which may already be degraded and are more accessible and easier to deforest

The amount of tree cover around forest remnants was calculated using 30-m-resolution global maps of forest extent and change from 2000 through 2023, version 1.11 (Hansen et al. 2013). Each pixel value represents the percentage of canopy closure for all vegetation taller than 5 m in height for the year 2000, which was classified as either forest (≥ 50% tree cover) or non-forest (Hasui et al. 2024). Therefore, such binarization is used loosely, as tree cover can comprise both natural forests and tree plantations (e.g., monocultures of oil palm, rubber, or eucalypt) (Tropek et al. 2014). Despite this, tree cover mostly represents natural forests, and tree plantations are a high-quality matrix type for forest species, given the structural similarity between the habitat (forest) and the matrix (tree plantation) (Prevedello & Vieira 2010). When bird surveys were conducted before 2002, we used the tree cover map for the year 2000. For surveys conducted from 2002 to 2017, we updated the tree cover map by subtracting the cumulative forest loss from 2001 up to the year prior to each survey’s first year (Moulatlet et al. 2021).

Results from time-series analysis of Landsat images in characterizing global forest extent and change from 2000 through 2015. For additional information about these results, please see the associated journal article (Hansen et al., Science 2013).

1. Tropical forests are subject to diverse deforestation pressures while their conservation is essential to achieve global climate goals. Predicting the location of deforestation is challenging due to the complexity of the natural and human systems involved but accurate and timely forecasts could enable effective planning and on-the-ground enforcement practices to curb deforestation rates. New computer vision technologies based on deep learning can be applied to the increasing volume of Earth observation data to generate novel insights and make predictions with unprecedented accuracy.

2. Here, we demonstrate the ability of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to learn spatiotemporal patterns of deforestation from a limited set of freely available global data layers, including multispectral satellite imagery, the Hansen maps of annual forest change (2001-2020) and the ALOS PALSAR digital surface model, to forecast deforestation (2021). We designed four model architectures, based on 2D CNNs, 3D CNNs, and Convolutional Long Short-Term Memory (ConvLSTM) Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), to produce spatial maps that indicate the risk to each forested pixel (~30 m) in the landscape of becoming deforested within the next year. They were trained and tested on data from two ~80,000 km² tropical forest regions in the Southern Peruvian Amazon.

3. The networks could predict the location of future forest loss to a high degree of accuracy (F₁ = 0.58-0.71). Our best performing model (3D CNN) had the highest pixel-wise accuracy (F₁ = 0.71) when validated on 2020 forest loss (2014-2019 training). Visual interpretation of the mapped forecasts indicated that the network could automatically discern the drivers of forest loss from the input data. For example, pixels around new access routes (e.g. roads) were assigned high risk whereas this was not the case for recent, concentrated natural loss events (e.g. remote landslides).

4. CNNs can harness limited time-series data to predict near-future deforestation patterns, an important step in harnessing the growing volume of satellite remote sensing data to curb global deforestation. The modelling framework can be readily applied to any tropical forest location and used by governments and conservation organisations to prevent deforestation and plan protected areas.

How to download this data:Click on "View Map" button at the top (the Download button allows you to download the footprint of tiles but not the actual alerts)Click on the tile where your area of interest is locatedCopy the whole URL from the pop-up and paste it into your internet browser. Download will begin automaticallyAdditional DetailsThis data set, assembled by Global Forest Watch, aggregates deforestation alerts from three alert systems (GLAD-L, GLAD-S2, RADD) into a single, integrated deforestation alert layer. This integration allows users to detect deforestation events faster than any single system alone, as the integrated layer is updated when any of the source alert systems are updated. The source alert systems are derived from satellites of varying spectral and spatial resolutions. 30m GLAD Landsat-based alerts are up-sampled to match the 10m spatial resolution of Sentinel-based alerts (GLAD-S2, RADD). This avoids the double counting of overlapping alerts, which are instead classified at a higher confidence level, indicated by darker pixels. Alerts are classified as high confidence when detected twice by a single alert system. Alerts detected by multiple alert systems are classified as highest confidence. With multiple sensors picking up change in the same location, we can be more confident that it was not a false positive and may not need to wait for additional satellite imagery to increase confidence in detected loss. *This data product utilizes a special encoding*Each pixel (alert) encodes the date of disturbance and confidence level in one integer value. The leading integer of the decimal representation is 2 for a low-confidence alert, 3 for a high-confidence alert, and 4 for an alert detected by multiple alert systems, followed by the number of days since December 31, 2014. 0 is the no-data value. For example:20001 is a low confidence alert on January 1st, 201530055 is a high confidence alert on February 24, 201521847 is a low confidence alert on January 21, 202041847 is a highest confidence alert (detected by multiple alert systems) on January 21, 2020. Alert date represents the earliest detection0 represents no alertResolution: 10 x 10mGeographic Coverage: 30°N to 30°SFrequency of Updates: DailyDate of Content: January 1st, 2015 – presentCautionsConfidence level may change retroactively as source data is updated GLAD-L: Available for entire tropics (30°N to 30°S) from January 1, 2018 to the present, and from 2015 to the present for select countries in the Amazon, Congo Basin, and insular Southeast Asia GLAD-S2: Available for the primary humid tropical forest areas of South America from January 2019 to the present RADD: Available for the primary humid tropical forest areas of South America, sub-Saharan Africa and insular Southeast Asia at a 10m spatial resolution, with coverage from January 2019 to the present for Africa and January 2020 to the present for South America and Southeast Asia In order to integrate the three alerting systems on a common grid, GLAD-L is resampled from 30m resolution to 10m resolution to match GLAD-S2 and RADD. As a result, pixels in the integrated layer may not exactly align with pixels in the individual GLAD-L layer. Each pixel in the integrated layer preserves the earliest date of detection from any alerting system, even if multiple systems have reported an alert in that pixel. In some situations, this may lead to inconsistent visualizations when switching from the integrated layer to individual alerting system layers. It is advisable to use in the integrated layer when you are interested in the earliest date of detection by any alerting system. However, it is better to use the individual alerting system layers if you are interested in a specific alert type. Although called ‘deforestation alerts’ these alerts detect forest or tree cover disturbances. This product does not distinguish between human-caused and other disturbance types. Where alerts are detected within plantation forests (more likely to happen in the GLAD-L system), alerts may indicate timber harvesting operations, without a conversion to a non-forest land use. The term deforestation is used because these are potential deforestation events, and alerts could be further investigated to determine this. LicenseCC by 4.0SourcesGLAD Alerts:Hansen, M.C., A. Krylov, A. Tyukavina, P.V. Potapov, S. Turubanova, B. Zutta, S. Ifo, B. Margono, F. Stolle, and R. Moore. 2016. Humid tropical forest disturbance alerts using Landsat data. Environmental Research Letters, 11 (3). GLAD-S2 Alerts:Pickens, A.H., Hansen, M.C., Adusei, B., and Potapov P. 2020. Sentinel-2 Forest Loss Alert. Global Land Analysis and Discovery (GLAD), University of Maryland. RADD Alerts:Reiche, J., Mullissa, A., Slagter, B., Gou, Y., Tsendbazar, N.E., Braun, C., Vollrath, A., Weisse, M.J., Stolle, F., Pickens, A., Donchyts, G., Clinton, N., Gorelick, N., Herold, M. 2021. Forest disturbance alerts for the Congo Basin using Sentinel-1. Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd0a8

The data in this repository is available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Any rights in individual contents of the database are licensed under the Database Contents License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/

This repository includes two datasets. The first is a collection of polygons covering mines globally and the associated forest cover loss from 2000 to 2019. The polygons were derived by merging the "global-scale mining polygons version 2" (Maus et al., 2022) and mining and quarry polygon features extracted from the OpenStreetMap database (OpenStreetMap contributors, 2017). To remove double counting of areas the overlaps between the datasets were resolved by uniting intersecting features into single polygon features, i.e. keeping only the external borders of intersecting features. A random visual check was conducted, and a few small manual editing of polygons was performed where errors were identified.

The resulting dataset is encoded as a Geopackage in the file 'global_mining_polygons.gpkg'. The GeoPackage includes a single layer with 192,584 entries called 'mining_polygons' with the following attributes:

• id unique feature identifier
• isoa3 ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes
• country country names
• area area of the polygon in squared kilometres
• geom the geometry of the features in geographical coordinates WGS84

The second dataset provides annual time series of global tree cover loss within mines from 2000 to 2019, covering all polygons in the above dataset. The area of tree cover loss for each polygon was calculated from the Global Forest Change database (Hansen et al., 2013). Each polygon also has additional string attributes with biomes derived from Ecoregions 2017 ^{© Resolve} (Dinerstein et al., 2017) and the level of protection derived from The World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2022).

This dataset is encoded in CSV format in the file 'global_mining_forest_loss.csv', which includes 416,412 entries and 53 variables, such that:

• id unique feature identifier
• id_hcluster unique feature identifier
• list_of_commodities a comma-separated list of commodities
• isoa3 ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes
• country country names
• ecoregion ecoregion name
• biome biome name
• year the year
• area_forest_loss_XXX_YYY

The values of tree cover loss are disaggregated per initial percentage of tree cover (XXX) and per protection level (YYY).

• XXX can take one of:
  • 000: total tree cover loss independently from the initial tree cover
  • 025: tree cover loss on pixels with initial tree cover between 0 and 25%
  • 050: tree cover loss on pixels with initial tree cover between 25 and 50%
  • 075: tree cover loss on pixels with initial tree cover between 50 and 75%
  • 100: tree cover loss on pixels with initial tree cover between 75 and 100%
• YYY can take one of:
  • la: tree cover loss within strict nature reserve
  • Ib: tree cover loss within wilderness area
  • II: tree cover loss within national park
  • III: tree cover loss within natural monument or feature
  • IV: tree cover loss within habitat/species management area
  • V: tree cover loss within protected landscape/seascape
  • VI: tree cover loss within PA with sustainable use of natural resources
  • p: tree cover loss within any type of protection, including not applicable, not assigned, or not reported
  • none: when YYY is omitted, total tree cover loss within the polygon

For details about the protection levels definition see the UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2022). The id can be used to link polygons to forest loss data.

OverviewThe tropical tree cover data maps tree extent at the ten-meter scale and tree cover at the half hectare scale to enable accurate monitoring of trees in urban areas, agricultural lands, and in open canopy and dry forest ecosystems. The data extends over 4.3 billion hectares of the global tropics. The data is derived from multi-temporal convolutional neural network models applied to Sentinel optical and radar imagery. The 10-meter dataset is a binary tree extent layer that is similar to a land cover map, while the tree cover data represents fractional cover at a half-hectare scale. More details on the methodology and analyses can be found on the GitHub page.Resolution: 0.5 haGeographic Coverage: 4.3 billion hectares of the tropics (-23.44 to 23.44 latitude)Frequency of Updates: Annual change detection maps starting in 2017 are planned for 2024 releaseDate of Content: 2020CautionsThis dataset uses a different definition of a tree and a different definition of tree cover than does Hansen et al. (2013). This dataset defines a tree according to both the height and crown diameter. Woody vegetation higher than 5 meters regardless of crown diameter, or between 3 and 5 meters with a minimum crown diameter of 5 meters is considered a tree. This definition is different from Hansen et al. (2013) which defines a tree as any vegetation at least 5 meters in height. The tropical tree cover dataset does not disambiguate plantation trees from non-plantation trees.Analyses or statistics derived for shapefiles smaller than 0.5ha may not be accurate

This data set, a collaboration between the GLAD (Global Land Analysis & Discovery) lab at the University of Maryland, Google, USGS, and NASA, measures areas of tree cover loss across all global land (except Antarctica and other Arctic islands) at approximately 30 × 30 meter resolution. The data were generated using multispectral satellite imagery from the Landsat 5 thematic mapper (TM), the Landsat 7 thematic mapper plus (ETM+), and the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) sensors. Over 1 million satellite images were processed and analyzed, including over 600,000 Landsat 7 images for the 2000-2012 interval, and approximately 400,000 Landsat 5, 7, and 8 images for updates for the 2011-2019 interval. The clear land surface observations in the satellite images were assembled and a supervised learning algorithm was applied to identify per pixel tree cover loss.

In this data set, “tree cover” is defined as all vegetation greater than 5 meters in height, and may take the form of natural forests or plantations across a range of canopy densities. Tree cover loss is defined as “stand replacement disturbance,” or the complete removal of tree cover canopy at the Landsat pixel scale. Tree cover loss may be the result of human activities, including forestry practices such as timber harvesting or deforestation (the conversion of natural forest to other land uses), as well as natural causes such as disease or storm damage. Fire is another widespread cause of tree cover loss, and can be either natural or human-induced.

This data set has been updated annually since its creation, and now includes loss up to 2019 (Version 1.7). The analysis method has been modified in numerous ways, including new data for the target year, re-processed data for the previous two years (2011 and 2012 for the Version 1.1 update, 2012 and 2013 for the Version 1.2 update), and improved modelling and calibration. These modifications improve change detection for 2011-2019, including better detection of boreal loss due to fire, smallholder rotation agriculture in tropical forests, selective losing, and short cycle plantations. Eventually, a future “Version 2.0” will include reprocessing for 2000-2010 data, but in the meantime integrated use of the original data and Version 1.7 should be performed with caution. Read more about the Version 1.7 update here.

When zoomed out (< zoom level 13), pixels of loss are shaded according to the density of loss at the 30 x 30 meter scale. Pixels with darker shading represent areas with a higher concentration of tree cover loss, whereas pixels with lighter shading indicate a lower concentration of tree cover loss. There is no variation in pixel shading when the data is at full resolution (≥ zoom level 13).

The tree cover canopy density of the displayed data varies according to the selection - use the legend on the map to change the minimum tree cover canopy density threshold.

The Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) in the Philippines is among the last forest frontiers in the country and is also home to 13 major watersheds in Northern Luzon that supply irrigation and hydroelectricity to other regions. However, it is faced with the deterioration of the quality of its watersheds due to forest loss driven mainly by agricultural expansion and illegal logging. Thus, this study was conducted to analyze the spatial and temporal patterns of forest loss that could serve as a basis for policy decisions. Also, this paper determined the strength of relationships using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between forest loss and seven independent variables, which includes forest cover, agricultural areas, built-up, road network, and socio-economic data. This study utilized the Hansen Global Forest Change (HGFC), a Landsat-derived dataset from 2001 to 2019. Results revealed that 70,925 hectares (ha) of forest loss were detected with an annual deforestation rate of 3,74...

This data set, a collaboration between the GLAD (Global Land Analysis & Discovery) lab at the University of Maryland, Google, USGS, and NASA, measures areas of tree cover loss across all global land (except Antarctica and other Arctic islands) at approximately 30 × 30 meter resolution. The data were generated using multispectral satellite imagery from the Landsat 5 thematic mapper (TM), the Landsat 7 thematic mapper plus (ETM+), and the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) sensors. Over 1 million satellite images were processed and analyzed, including over 600,000 Landsat 7 images for the 2000-2012 interval, and approximately 400,000 Landsat 5, 7, and 8 images for updates for the 2011-2019 interval. The clear land surface observations in the satellite images were assembled and a supervised learning algorithm was applied to identify per pixel tree cover loss.In this data set, “tree cover” is defined as all vegetation greater than 5 meters in height, and may take the form of natural forests or plantations across a range of canopy densities. Tree cover loss is defined as “stand replacement disturbance,” or the complete removal of tree cover canopy at the Landsat pixel scale. Tree cover loss may be the result of human activities, including forestry practices such as timber harvesting or deforestation (the conversion of natural forest to other land uses), as well as natural causes such as disease or storm damage. Fire is another widespread cause of tree cover loss, and can be either natural or human-induced.This data set has been updated annually since its creation, and now includes loss up to 2019 (Version 1.7). The analysis method has been modified in numerous ways, including new data for the target year, re-processed data for the previous two years (2011 and 2012 for the Version 1.1 update, 2012 and 2013 for the Version 1.2 update), and improved modelling and calibration. These modifications improve change detection for 2011-2019, including better detection of boreal loss due to fire, smallholder rotation agriculture in tropical forests, selective losing, and short cycle plantations. Eventually, a future “Version 2.0” will include reprocessing for 2000-2010 data, but in the meantime integrated use of the original data and Version 1.7 should be performed with caution. Read more about the Version 1.7 update here.When zoomed out (< zoom level 13), pixels of loss are shaded according to the density of loss at the 30 x 30 meter scale. Pixels with darker shading represent areas with a higher concentration of tree cover loss, whereas pixels with lighter shading indicate a lower concentration of tree cover loss. There is no variation in pixel shading when the data is at full resolution (≥ zoom level 13).The tree cover canopy density of the displayed data varies according to the selection - use the legend on the map to change the minimum tree cover canopy density threshold.

This dataset provides a comparison of forest extent agreement from seven remote sensing-based products across Mexico. These satellite-derived products include European Space Agency 2020 Land Cover Map for Mexico (ESA), Globeland30 2020 (Globeland30), Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2015 Land Cover Map (CEC), Impact Observatory 2020 Land Cover Map (IO), NAIP Trained Mean Percent Cover Map (NEX-TC), Global Land Analysis and Discovery Global 2010 Tree Cover (Hansen-TC), and Global Forest Cover Change Tree Cover 30 m Global (GFCC-TC). All products included data at 10-30 m resolution and represented the state of forest or tree cover from 2010 to 2020. These seven products were chosen based on: a) feedback from end-users in Mexico; b) availability and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and replicable) data principles; and c) products representing different methodological approaches from global to regional scales. The combined agreement map documents forest cover for each satellite-derived product at 30-m resolution across Mexico. The data are in cloud optimized GeoTIFF format and cover the period 2010-2020. A shapefile is included that outlines Mexico mainland areas.

Forest carbon emissions represent the greenhouse gas emissions arising from stand-replacing forest disturbances that occurred in each modeled year (megagrams CO2 emissions/ha, between 2001 and 2020). Emissions include all relevant ecosystem carbon pools (aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, dead wood, litter, soil) and greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O). Emissions estimates for each pixel are calculated following IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories where stand-replacing disturbance occurred, as mapped in the Global Forest Change annual tree cover loss data of Hansen et al. (2013). The carbon emitted from each pixel is based on carbon densities in 2000, with adjustment for carbon accumulated between 2000 and the year of disturbance. Emissions reflect a gross estimate, i.e., carbon removals from subsequent regrowth are not included. Instead, gross carbon removals resulting from subsequent regrowth after clearing are accounted for in the companion forest carbon removals layer. The fraction of carbon emitted from each pixel upon disturbance (emission factor) is affected by several factors, including the direct driver of disturbance, whether fire was observed in the year of or preceding the observed disturbance event, whether the disturbance occurred on peat, and more. All emissions are assumed to occur in the year of disturbance. Emissions can be assigned to a specific year using the Hansen tree cover loss data.This emissions layer is part of the forest carbon flux model described in Harris et al. (2021), which introduces a geospatial monitoring framework for estimating global forest carbon fluxes which can assist governments and non-government actors with tracking greenhouse gas fluxes from forests and decreasing emissions or increasing removals by forests. All input layers were resampled to a common resolution of 0.00025 x 0.00025 degrees each to match Hansen et al. (2013).Emissions are available for download in two different area units: 1) megagrams of CO2 emissions/ha, and 2) megagrams of CO2 emissions/pixel. The first is appropriate for visualizing (mapping) emissions because it represent the density of emissions per hectare. The second is appropriate for calculating the emissions in an area of interest (AOI) because the values of the pixels in the AOI can be summed to obtain the total emissions for that area. The values in the latter were calculated by adjusting the emissions per hectare by the size of each pixel, which varies by latitude. Both datasets only include pixels within forests, as defined in the methods of Harris et al. (2021).Related Open Data Portal layers: Forest Carbon Removals, Net Forest Carbon FluxGoogle Earth Engine asset and visualization scriptResolution: 30 x 30mGeographic Coverage: GlobalFrequency of Updates: AnnualDate of Content: 2001-2020Cautions:Data are the product of modeling and thus have an inherent degree of error and uncertainty. Users are strongly encouraged to read and fully comprehend the metadata and other available documentation prior to data use. Values are applicable to forest areas only (canopy cover >30 percent and >5 m height). See Harris et al. (2021) for further information on the forest definition used in the analysis.Emissions reflect stand-replacing disturbances as observed in Landsat satellite imagery and do not include emissions from unobserved forest degradation.Emissions reflect a gross estimate, i.e., carbon removals from any regrowth that occurs after disturbance are not included. Instead, gross carbon removals are accounted for in the companion forest carbon removals layer.Emissions data contain temporal inconsistencies because tree cover loss from 2001-2010 and 2011-2020 were produced from different algorithms, with later years of loss likely to be more sensitive to smaller-scale forest disturbances.

Abstract: NetCDF files of the forest cover fraction, vegetation cover fraction and fraction of non-vegetated area on 250m grid resolution sinusoidal grid generated at ICDC from the original HDF files (see https://www.cen.uni-hamburg.de/en/icdc/data/land/modis-vcf-forest.html and https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.12921) obtained from https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/mod44bv061/ are used to compute globally gridded maps of these parameters at 0.5 degree grid resolution on an equi-rectangular climate modeling grid (CMG). The global maps contain the grid-cell mean fractions of the three mentioned parameters, their variance within the grid cells, and - for the forest cover fraction - the grid-cell mean standard deviation. In addition, the data set includes maps of the number of valid forest cover fraction values at 250 m resolution per 0.5 degree grid cell, a grid cell mean quality flag and fractions of the two most abundant quality flags (primary and secondary). Generally all valid data are used; the user is advised to check the quality flags to eventually discard data of low quality.

TableOfContents: grid cell mean forest cover fraction; grid cell mean forest cover fraction standard deviation; forest cover fraction variance within grid cell; grid cell mean vegetation cover fraction; vegetation cover fraction variance within grid cell; non-vegetated area cover fraction; non-vegetated area cover fraction variance within grid cell; number of useful vegetation cover fraction values per grid cell; grid cell mean quality flag; primary quality flag fraction; secondary quality flag fraction

Technical Info: dimension: 720 columns x 360 rows x unlimited; temporalExtent_startDate: 2022-03-06; temporalExtent_endDate: 2023-03-05; temporalResolution: yearly; spatialResolution: 0.5; spatialResolutionUnit: degrees; horizontalResolutionXdirection: 0.5; horizontalResolutionXdirectionUnit: degrees; horizontalResolutionYdirection: 0.5; horizontalResolutionYdirectionUnit: degrees; verticalResolution: none; verticalResolutionUnit: none; verticalStart: none; verticalEnd: none; instrumentName: MODerate Resolution Spectroradiometer (MODIS); instrumentType: visible_to_infrared_spectroradiometer; instrumentLocation: Earth Observation Satellite (EOS) Terra; instrumentProvider: NOAA/NASA

Methods: [1] https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod44bv061/; [2] Townshend, J., et al., User Guide for the MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields product Collection 6.1, verison 1, https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/documents/1494/MOD44B_User_Guide_V61pdf; [3] Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD), https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/documents/113/MOD44B_ATBD.pdf; [4] Carroll, M., et al., 2011. Vegetative Cover Conversion and Vegetation Continuous Fields. In: Ramachandran, B., C. O. Justice, and M. Abrams (eds.), Land Remote Sensing and Global Environment Change: NASA's Earth Observing System and the Science of ASTER and MODIS. Springer Verlag.; [5] Hansen, M., et al., 2005. Estimation of tree cover using MODIS data at global, continental and regional/local scales. Int. J. Rem. Sens., 26(19), 4359-4380.

Units: Units for all variables (see TableOfContents): percent; percent; 1; percent; 1; percent; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1

geoLocations: westBoundLongitude: -180.0 degrees East; eastBoundLongitude: 180.0 degrees East; southBoundLatitude: -90.0 degrees North; northBoundLatitude: 90.0 degrees North; geoLocationPlace: global on land

Size: 1 file, ~5.2 Mb

Format: netCDF

DataSources:

Original data on sinusoidal grid tiles in hdf-format: https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD44B.061 (last accessed 2023-06-23), see also https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod44bv061/ (last accessed: 2023-06-23)

Reprocessed data on sinusoidal grid tiles in netCDF format: https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.12921 (last access 2023-07-14), see also https://www.cen.uni-hamburg.de/en/icdc/data/land/modis-vcf-forest.html (last accessed 2023-07-14)

Contact: stefan.kern (at) uni-hamburg.de

Web page: https://www.cen.uni-hamburg.de/en/icdc/data/land/modis-vcf-forest.html

The estimation of biome-wide forest cover and forest cover loss by the Global Forest Monitoring Project was based on a probability-based sampling approach employing multi-resolution satellite data. Biome-wide change indicator maps were created using moderate spatial resolution imagery for 2000 to 2005 from the MODerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer sensor (MODIS). These change indicator maps were used to stratify the respective biomes into high, medium and low change likelihood strata. Subsequent samples of 18.5km by 18.5km blocks of high spatial resolution image pairs from the Landsat ETM+ sensor were taken within each stratum and used to determine biome-wide area of forest clearing. The method will be extended to AVHRR 1990s data as well.

The sampling strategy employed the MODIS data in the design to stratify the blocks and also in the analysis via a survey sampling regression estimator of forest clearing. This statistically rigorous sampling strategy provides a biome-level clearing estimate with known uncertainty.

Biome data and results are available for boreal forests, temperate forests, dry tropical and subtropical forests and woodlands, and humid tropical forests. Global data are also available. See individual biome monitoring web pages for relevant scientific publications related to this research. The research was sponsored by the NASA Land-Cover and Land-Use Change Program.

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O., Townshend, J.R.G., 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342, 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693

• Annual updates have been proposed by Hansen et al. (2013).Data sources used for comparison of forest cover estimates in the Republic of Ireland, outlining the potential advantages and disadvantages of each method.