Indonesia:
According to GFW tree cover loss between 2015 and 2016 totalled 4,172,540ha. Some explanations for this worryingly high figure are provided by Sahide & Giessen (2015) - land use change for non-forestry purposes is a key driver. The correlation between the location of tree cover loss and land used for oil palm appears to support Sahide and Giessen's findings (surely these locations aren't coincidental)...
Screenshot from GFW - tree cover loss between 2015 and 2016 in Indonesia
Screenshot from GFW - land used for industrial-scale palm oil plantations in Indonesia
Philippines:
Tree cover loss between 2015 and 2016 in the Philippines was less than Indonesia - 195,005ha (area of forested land, size of country etc plays a part in that). What I actually found interesting with the Philippines was the amount of land that appears to have been designated some kind of protected area status, and the amount of tree cover loss taking place in these areas. On the island of Palawan - the majority of the island is designated a 'habitat and species management area' (presumably due to the high endemism of this island) - yet deforestation is taking place in these areas (see recent article from The Guardian). Apan et al., 2017 have researched deforestation in Filipino protected areas, they found:
'there was a significant number of PAs with phenomenal forest cover loss in terms of extent (48,483 ha over 12 years) and rate (up to 21%)' (P.32).
The GFW figures seem to corroborate their results, suggesting that these trends have continued all the way into 2016...
Screenshot from GFW - protected area designations and tree cover loss between 2015-2016 in the Philippines
Review time:
First of all, I have to commend the site on the wealth of information it has available to users, not only does it provide ecological data on forest change, different land-use types and protection zones - but data on the people using and effected by forest change is included. 'Resource rights' and 'land use rights' are interesting layers you can turn on, I found this added depth and another aspect to consider concerning the data when I was browsing. I did find it somewhat difficult to create a composite picture of the current situation in south-east Asia for this post due to the lack of a 'regions' category/layer. Although the product provides country level data - it's tricky to get an idea of regional trends when you have to specifically pick each country you want to display. Furthermore, it wasn't possible to categorise the kind of forest you wanted to view data on, in this case obviously that would have been tropical rainforests. However, I was using the site for quite a specific purpose and the criticisms mentioned are merely nitpicking, they certainly wouldn't stop me from returning to GFW!
Hi Ruth,
ReplyDeleteIt's great to see how enthused you are by GIS- it seems a common trait amongst physical geographers!
Do you think such a site would help raise awareness as to the mass of rainforest which is cleared every year. Or do you think that the site would only really be sought after by people who are already concerned and is thus "preaching to the choir"?
You also mention a few pointers on how the site could be improved- i.e. type of forest. By this do you mean temperate rainforest vs equatorial rainforest, etc.? Because surely you can surmise this from the rough latitudinal location of each area? Or did you mean a more nuanced categorisation (e.g. species structure)?
Hi Mari,
DeleteThank you for your comment. To be honest I think you're right when you say that a site like this would only really be sought after by people who already have an interest in this area. I think it could be a really useful education tool however, I could imagine this kind of thing being great introduced in schools in geography lessons - it's interactive, educational and definitely makes you stop and think!
With regards to my mention of a lack of 'type of rainforest' category/layer - of course it's possible (if you know or look it up) roughly what kind of forest you're looking at - but what I really meant by my comment was that as a mapping tool - it would be nice to be able to pick categories predominantly for the aesthetic information the map you're producing could provide. Having multiple forest types highlighted and their increase/decrease in cover in different colours would be really useful and telling even when just glancing at the map rather than having to research what kind of forest you're looking at on another site for example! I hope that makes sense - thanks again for reading!