Tag: Resilience

Posted on

Large-scale land restoration improved drought resilience in Ethiopia’s degraded watersheds

  • Sutton, P. C., Anderson, S. J., Costanza, R. & Kubiszewski, I. The ecological economics of land degradation: impacts on ecosystem service values. Ecol. Econ. 126, 182–192 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Burrell, A. L., Evans, J. P. & De Kauwe, M. G. Anthropogenic climate change has driven over 5 million km2 of drylands towards desertification. Nat. Commun. 11, 3853 (2020).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Reynolds, J. F. et al. Global desertification: building a science for dryland development. Science 316, 847–651 (2007).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Nkonya, E. et al. in Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development (eds Nkonya, E. et al.) 117–165 (Springer, 2016).

  • Barbier, E. B. & Hochard, J. P. Does land degradation increase poverty in developing countries? PloS ONE 11, e0152973 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Chonabayashi, S., Jithitikulchai, T. & Qu, Y. Does agricultural diversification build economic resilience to drought and flood? Evidence from poor households in Zambia. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 15, 65–80 (2020).


    Google Scholar     

  • Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities and Trade-offs (World Bank, 2006).

  • Sustainable Land Management and Restoration in the Middle East and North Africa Region—Issues, Challenges, and Recommendations (World Bank, 2019).

  • Schmidt, E. & Tadesse, F. The impact of sustainable land management on household crop production in the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 30, 777–787 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Gashaw, T., Bantider, A. & G/Silassie, H. Land degradation in Ethiopia: causes, impacts and rehabilitation techniques. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 4, 98–104 (2014).


    Google Scholar     

  • The Cost of Land Degradation in Ethiopia: A Review of Past Studies (World Bank, 2007).

  • Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing, Value Added ({6d6906d986cb38e604952ede6d65f3d49470e23f1a526661621333fa74363c48} of GDP)—Ethiopia (World Bank, accessed 11 March 2021); https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS?locations=ET

  • Rural Population ({6d6906d986cb38e604952ede6d65f3d49470e23f1a526661621333fa74363c48} of Total Population)—Ethiopia (World Bank, accessed 11 March 2021); https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=ET

  • Gessesse, G. D., Tamene, L., Abera, W., Amede, T. & A, W. Effects of land management practices and land cover types on soil loss and crop productivity in Ethiopia: a review. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 9, 544–554 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Abera, W. et al. Characterizing and evaluating the impacts of national land restoration initiatives on ecosystem services in Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 31, 37–52 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant in the Amount US$20.0 Million and a Proposed Grant from the Global Environmental Facility Trust Fund in the Amount of US$9.0 Million to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a Sustainable Land Management Project Report No. 42927-ET (World Bank, 2008).

  • Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR32.6 Million and a Proposed Grant from the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund in the Amount of US$8.33 Million and a Proposed Grant from the Least Developed Countries Fund Trust Fund in the Amount of US$4.62 Million and a Proposed Grant from the Ethiopia Sustainable Land Management Project Trust Fund in the Amount of US$42.65 Million to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a Sustainable Land Management Project II (SLMP-2) Report No. PAD525 (World Bank, 2013).

  • Implementation Completion and Results Report (IDA-H3770 TF-92320) on a Grant in the Amount of SDR12.5 Million (US$20.0 Million Equivalent) and a Global Environmental Facility Grant in the Amount of US$9.0 Million to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a Sustainable Land Management Project Report No. ICR3074 (World Bank, 2014).

  • Implementation Completion and Results Report (IDA-53180/TF15838/TF15868/TF15869) on a Credit in the Amount of SDR32.6 Million (US$50 Million Equivalent) and a Grant from the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund in the Amount of US$8.33 Million and a Grant from the Least Developed Countries Fund Trust Fund in the Amount of US$4.62 Million and a Grant from the Ethiopia Sustainable Land Management Project Trust Fund (Norway) in the Amount of US$42.65 Million to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a Sustainable Land Management Project Report No. ICR00004449 (World Bank, 2019).

  • Huete, A. et al. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 195–213 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Li, X. & Xiao, J. Mapping photosynthesis solely from solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence: a global, fine-resolution dataset of gross primary production derived from OCO-2. Remote Sens. 11, 2563 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A. & Deering, D. W. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTA. In Proc. Third Earth Reserves Technology Satellite Symposium (eds Freden, S. C. et al.) 309–317 (NASA, 1974).

  • Tucker, C. J. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 8, 127–150 (1979).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Song, X. P. et al. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560, 639–643 (2018).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Anderson, W. & Johnson, T. in Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development (eds Nkonya, E. et al.) 85–116 (Springer, 2016).

  • De Jong, R., De Bruin, S., Schaepman, M. & Dent, D. Quantitative mapping of global land degradation using Earth observations. Int. J. Remote Sens. 32, 6823–6853 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Bai, C. G., Dent, D. L., Olsson, L. & Schaepman, M. E. Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use Manage. 24, 223–234 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Frankenberg, C. et al. New global observations of the terrestrial carbon cycle from GOSAT: patterns of plant fluorescence with gross primary productivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L17706 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Joiner, J. et al. First observations of global and seasonal terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence from space. Biogeosciences 8, 637–651 (2011).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Mohammed, G. H. et al. Remote sensing of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) in vegetation: 50 years of progress. Remote Sens. Environ. 231, 111177 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Porcar-Castell, A. et al. Linking chlorophyll a fluorescence to photosynthesis for remote sensing applications: mechanisms and challenges. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 4065–4095 (2014).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Gu, L., Han, J., Wood, J. D., Chang, C. Y. & Sun, Y. Sun-induced Chl fluorescence and its importance for biophysical modeling of photosynthesis based on light reactions. N. Phytol. 223, 1179–1191 (2019).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Guanter, L. et al. Global and time-resolved monitoring of crop photosynthesis with chlorophyll fluorescence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E1327–E1333 (2014).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • Joiner, J. et al. Global monitoring of terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence from moderate-spectral-resolution near-infrared satellite measurements: methodology, simulations, and application to GOME-2. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 6, 2803–2823 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Sun, Y. et al. OCO-2 advances photosynthesis observation from space via solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence. Science 358, eaam5747 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Sun, Y. et al. Overview of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2: Retrieval, cross-mission comparison, and global monitoring for GPP. Remote Sens. Environ. 209, 808–823 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Guan, K. et al. Improving the monitoring of crop productivity using spaceborne solar-induced fluorescence. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 716–726 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • He, L. et al. From the ground to space: using solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence to estimate crop productivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087474 (2020).


    Google Scholar     

  • Ali, D. A., Deininger, K. & Monchuk, D. Using satellite imagery to assess impacts of soil and water conservation measures: evidence from Ethiopia’s Tana-Beles watershed. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106512 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Climate Data: Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) (NCAR, accessed 15 September 2021); https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/standardized-precipitation-index-spi

  • East Africa: Ethiopia (FEWS NET, accessed 12 January 2021); https://fews.net/east-africa/ethiopia

  • Agricultural Sample Survey 2012/13 (2005 E.C) Volume V, Report on Area and Production of Belg Season Crops for Private Peasant Holdings (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency, 2013).

  • Agricultural Sample Survey 2007/08 (2000 E.C) Volume V, Report on Area and Production of Belg Season Crops for Private Peasant Holdings (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency, 2008).

  • Wen, J. et al. A framework for harmonizing multiple satellite instruments to generate a long-term global high spatial-resolution solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF). Remote Sens. Environ. 239, 111644 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Ethiopia Sentinel2 Land Use Land Cover 2016 (RCMRD, 2018); http://geoportal.rcmrd.org/layers/servir{6d6906d986cb38e604952ede6d65f3d49470e23f1a526661621333fa74363c48}3Aethiopia_sentinel2_lulc2016

  • Burke, M., Driscoll, A., Lobell, D. B. & Ermon, S. Using satellite imagery to understand and promote sustainable development. Science 371, eabe8628 (2021).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Lobell, D. B., Thau, D., Seifert, C., Engle, E. & Little, B. A scalable satellite-based crop yield mapper. Remote Sens. Environ. 164, 324–333 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Lobell, D. B. et al. Eyes in the sky, boots on the ground: assessing satellite- and ground-based approaches to crop yield measurement and analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econon. 102, 202–219 (2019).

  • Li, X. & J, X. A global, 0.05-degree product of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence derived from OCO-2, MODIS, and reanalysis data. Remote Sens. 11, 517 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Funk, C. C. et al. A Quasi-Global Precipitation Time Series for Drought Monitoring (USGS, 2014).

  • Hersbach, H. et al. ERA5 Monthly Averaged Data on Single Levels from 1979 to Present (Copernicus Climate Change Service, 2019); https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.f17050d7

  • Yamazaki, D. et al. MERIT DEM: a new high-accuracy global digital elevation model and its merit to global hydrodynamic modeling. In: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2017 abstr. H12C-04 (2017).

  • Hengl, T. et al. Mapping soil properties of Africa at 250 m resolution: random forests significantly improve current predictions. PLoS ONE 10, e0125814 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • Sebastian, K. Agro-ecological Zones of Africa (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2009).

  • Pérez-Hoyos, A. Global Crop and Rangeland Masks (JRC, 2018); http://data.europa.eu/89h/jrc-10112-10005

    • Posted on

    Wildfire Resilience and the Role of Landscapes

    Facility Maintenance Decisions

    An expanded fire season has underscored the need for ongoing vigilance in planning, preparation, and maintenance.



    wildfire resilienceFrom landscaping selection to vegetation management plans, managers should take positive actions to reduce the overall wildfire risk for their facilities.




    In 2021, more than 46,000 wildfires scorched more than 5 million acres of land. Many of these fires have happened outside of the traditional fire season, which is September and October. 

    The expanded fire season has underscored the need for ongoing vigilance when it comes to wildfire resilience planning, preparation, and maintenance by institutional and commercial facilities. Understanding the vulnerability of a facility extends beyond just the building and its contents. It includes the landscaping and hardscaping around its property. 

    A building’s first line of defense against an approaching wildfire is its surroundings. A building’s defensible space divides into three zones and is the area between a building and an approaching wildfire, where the facility maintenance team can manage vegetation and other combustible materials to minimize the chance of ignition and fire spread. 

    The team needs to manage this space and its contents to retain protection year-round. Landscaping with fire-resistant plants is essential to making a meaningful reduction in the wildfire risk to a facility, but there is no guarantee this effort will eliminate all risk. 

    Ignition issues 

    Zone One is located within 5 feet of the building and is often referred to as the building ignition zone. The objective of activities in this zone is to reduce the chance that ignition of combustible materials by embers will result in direct flame contact with the building. Because this zone is closest to the building, it requires the most careful selection and intensive management of vegetation and materials. Managers need to: 

    • Install hard surfaces in this zone, such as a concrete walkway, or use noncombustible mulch products, such as rock mulch. 

    • Remove dead plant material from vegetation. 

    • Plant acceptable landscape vegetation in this zone, including irrigated lawn and low-growing herbaceous — non-woody — plants. Shrubs and trees, particularly conifers, should not be used in this zone, and vegetation that could overhang the roof can lead to buildup of flammable debris on the roof. 

    • Limit plant selection to varieties that grow no more than 12 inches in height If the facility has noncombustible siding, such as fiber-cement and the decision is to have plants in this zone. Workers must water and care for vegetation in this zone as any plant can become highly flammable if it is dead, dried out, or not well maintained. 

    Suitable plants for this zone include creeping phlox, jellybean plants, and Mexican hen and chicks. It is important to note that each of these plants thrive in USDA Hardiness Zones 9 through 11 and have a maximum height growth of 8 inches. For additional plants suitable for wildfire-prone locations, managers can consult the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) Wildfire Ready landscaping guide for businesses. 

    Vegetation management 

    Zone Two, located within 5-30 feet of the facility or to the property line, is where vegetation management is important to prevent fire from climbing into the upper portions of trees or shrubs, and to stop the fire from burning directly to the building. Trees and shrubs in this zone should be in well-spaced groupings and well maintained. 

    Eliminating ladder fuels that can allow fire burning in low-growing vegetation to reach taller vegetation, and creating separation between plants or plant groupings, are effective techniques to fulfill this objective. These techniques include: 

    • Dead plant material and tree branches should be removed on a regular maintenance schedule. 

    • Create islands or groupings of vegetation that will result in a discontinuous path of vegetation, making it difficult for the fire to burn directly to the building. Embers still might be able to ignite individual islands of vegetation in this zone. 

    • Remove lower tree branches and nearby shrubs — ladder fuels — so a surface fire cannot reach the tree crown. Trees located within this area should be maintained with a minimum horizontal spacing of 10 feet between crowns. Branches should be removed from the bottom one-third of the tree height. 

    • Paved parking areas surrounding commercial developments can serve as fire breaks, preventing the fire from burning directly to buildings. The building would still have to maintain design features that minimize vulnerabilities to an ember exposure. 

    Suitable plants in this zone include blue glow agave, hosta lily, and sun roses. It is important to note that each of these plants thrive in different USDA Hardiness Zones and have different maximum height growth, with the tallest at 36 inches. 

    Slowing the roll 

    Zone Three, located within 30-100 feet of the building or property line, has the main goal of slowing down the fire and reducing its energy. Maintenance tactics include: 

    • Tree and brush spacing should force the fire in the tree or shrub crowns to drop to the ground. 

    • Trees should be spaced a minimum of 10 feet between crowns. 

    • Tree branches should be trimmed so they do not hang below 10 feet from the ground. 

    • Dead trees, leaves, and shrubs should be removed. 

    Suitable landscaping in this zone can include taller trees and bushes. Some examples that are hardy in USDA hardiness zone 3 through 8 are Canada red chokecherry, green ash and Kentucky coffee tree. 

    In addition to selecting the proper landscaping, managers should consider developing a vegetation management plan that provides details and pictures about topography — slope and aspect — location of buildings on the parcel, proposed fuel treatment details and location, presence of noxious weeds on site and in the vicinity, environmentally sensitive concerns — e.g., threatened and endangered species, as well as state-listed sensitive species and wetlands — and vegetation maintenance and monitoring programs. 

    The plan also should provide information on the way workers will develop and maintain the three defensible space zones. Managers should integrate the vegetation maintenance plan into their facilities inspection and maintenance plans. IBHS recommends doing inspections at every season change and after significant weather events. 

    From landscaping selection to vegetation management plans, managers should take positive actions to reduce the overall wildfire risk for their facilities. Working together with neighboring facilities can create a more resilient community. While managers cannot fully eliminate the risk of wildfire, together they can help reduce the damage and overall downtime of businesses. 

    Chris Cioffi is a commercial engineer with the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety. 

    Related Topics:

    Comments