2023-05-04T13:11:58.897423

2025-03-14T16:25:00.531215

300

300 x 300m

Global

As new data becomes available

global

Use the following credit when these data are displayed: “Forest Landscape Integrity Index”. WCS. Accessed from Global Forest Watch on [date]. www.globalforestwatch.org.  Use the following credit when these data are cited: Grantham, H.S., A. Duncan, T.D. Evans, K.R. Jones, H.L. Beyer, R. Schuster, J. Walston, et al. 2020. “Anthropogenic Modification of Forests Means Only 40% of Remaining Forests Have High Ecosystem Integrity.” Nature Communications 11 (1): 5978. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3. 

Forest Landscape Integrity Index

(2019, 300 m, global, WCS)

Grantham, H.S., A. Duncan, T.D. Evans, K.R. Jones, H.L. Beyer, R. Schuster, J. Walston, et al. 2020. “Anthropogenic Modification of Forests Means Only 40% of Remaining Forests Have High Ecosystem Integrity.” Nature Communications 11 (1): 5978. [doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3]( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19493-3)

[CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

English

To produce the Forest Landscape Integrity Index (FLII), four data sets were combined representing: (i) forest extent; (ii) ‘observed’ pressure from high impact, localized human activities for which spatial datasets exist, specifically: infrastructure, agriculture, and recent deforestation; (iii) ‘inferred’ pressure associated with edge effects, and other diffuse processes, (e.g. activities such as hunting and selective logging) modelled using proximity to observed pressures; and iv) anthropogenic changes in forest connectivity due to forest loss. These datasets were combined to produce an index score for each forest pixel (300m), with the highest scores reflecting the highest forest integrity, and applied to forest extent for the start of 2019. Globally consistent parameters were used for all elements (i.e. parameters do not vary geographically). All calculations were conducted in Google Earth Engine.

Displays forest condition as a continuous index determined by degree of anthropogenic modification

The forest base map follows the Global Forest Cover product [(Hansen et. al. 2013)](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/850) and as such includes both ‘natural’ forests and planted trees. It uses 20% canopy cover threshold and is resampled to 300 m. Cover losses 2000-2019 classed as temporary by [Curtis et al. (2018)](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6407/1108), i.e. rotational forestry and swidden, continue to be treated as forest, with a due penalty for the modification experienced. Levels of human modification mapped are conservative; for example, no fires in are treated as anthropogenic (since in some systems many are natural), and the effects of climate change are not captured. Not all effects from geographical variations in levels of governance are captured. Online tools are being developed to enable users to tailor the global assumptions, weights, and criteria (e.g. forest definitions, treatment of fire) to more local contexts. Further caveats can be found in the paper. The paper categorizes the continuous variable into illustrative classes of high, medium and low forest integrity, benchmarked against known locations: high integrity scores are those ≥9.6, medium integrity scores >6.0 but <9.6, and low integrity scores ≤6.0.

Land Cover

Jan 2025

https://www.forestintegrity.com/

c39c30d8-d403-420f-b712-081b5746ed61