Investigating syndromes of agricultural land degradation through past trajectories and future scenarios

Figures & data

Figure 1 Location of the Emilia-Romagna region.

Table 1 Land use/land cover (LULC) datasets used in the analysis

Year	Nominal scale	Information source	Minimum mapping unit (ha)	Classification scheme	Number and level of classes
1954	1:25,000	Panchromatic aerial photographs	2.25	ad hoc; but made comparable with 2008	19 classes on two levels
2008	1:25,000	RGB and infra-red ortho-photographs	1.56	Corine Land Cover up to the third level and based on ad-hoc specifications for a fourth level	83 on four levels

Table 2 Land use/land cover (LULC) classes after the harmonization

Description	Code detailed level	Code aggregated level
Urban areas (urban fabric, commercial units), major roads, railways	1	1
Mine, dump and construction sites	2	1
Industrial and port areas	3	1
Airports and associated infrastructures	4	1
Artificial, non-agricultural vegetated areas (green urban areas, sports and leisure facilities)	5	1
Arable land also in association with permanent crops	6	2
Rice (Oryza sativa) fields	7	2
Vineyards	8	2
Olive (Olea europaea) groves and fruit tree plantations	9	2
Mixed specialized crops, orchards, greenhouses and nurseries	10	2
Poplars and other tree plantations	11	2
Meadows also in association with permanent crops	12	2
Complex cultivation patterns (crop mosaics)	13	2
Forests and chestnut plantations	14	3
Scrubland and recent reforestation	15	3
Natural grasslands and moors	16	3
Areas with dominant bare rocks	17	3
Wetlands	18	4
Water bodies	19	5

Figure 2 Gains and losses for each land use/land cover class. Rice, Oryza sativa; olive, Olea europaea.

Figure 3 Contributions to the net change in urban areas. Rice, Oryza sativa; olive, Olea europaea.

Table 3 Land use/land cover (LULC) area (in ha) and percentages for each class in 1954 and 2008 and the differences between 1954 and 2008

	Years	1954	2008	1954	2008	Change 2008–1995
	Code aggregated level	ha		%		ha	%
Land use land cover classes (detailed level)	1	28,134	115,784	1.27	5.23	87,650	3.96
	2	211	15,752	0.01	0.71	15,541	0.70
	3	3558	51,158	0.16	2.31	47,600	2.15
	4	502	1819	0.02	0.08	1317	0.06
	5	1321	21,979	0.06	0.99	20,658	0.93
	6	1,254,351	1,044,395	56.70	47.22	−209,956	−9.48
	7	25,838	6475	1.17	0.29	−19,363	−0.88
	8	1214	44,102	0.05	1.99	42,888	1.94
	9	56,455	101,465	2.55	4.59	45,010	2.04
	10	19,915	4752	0.90	0.21	−15,163	−0.69
	11	6471	10,730	0.29	0.49	4259	0.19
	12	39,000	30,724	1.76	1.39	−8276	−0.37
	13	150,540	54,933	6.80	2.48	−95,607	−4.32
	14	331,866	523,945	15.00	23.69	192,079	8.69
	15	163,910	73,254	7.41	3.31	−90,656	−4.10
	16	7517	8034	0.34	0.36	517	0.02
	17	33,237	22,415	1.50	1.01	−10,822	−0.49
	18	45,931	25,277	2.08	1.14	−20,654	−0.93
	19	42,303	54,814	1.91	2.48	12,511	0.57
	Totals	2,212,274	2,211,807	100	100

Figure 4 Contributions to the net change in forest lands. Rice, Oryza sativa; olive, Olea europaea.

Figure 5 An example of artificialisation around pre-existing urban centres and roads.

Figure 6 An example of areas with transition from agriculture to forest and natural vegetation land.