When the Numbers Say Forests Are Growing, but Natural Forests Are Disappearing, Which Story Should We Believe?

Figure 1: Forest Land Degradation in 2000 — Africa had the highest level of forest land degradation, while East Asia and the Caribbean had the lowest.

Forests are extremely important ecosystems on Earth. They are home to countless species of animals and plants, regulate the climate, provide resources and habitats for humans and other species, and protect the soil and water. However, not all is well with the forests of the world. In fact, the situation may seem conflicting because certain statistics can suggest that forests are growing, but the actual natural forests are disappearing. It is essential to review multiple pieces of data to better assess and address the issue. The three Tableau graphs with the Kaggle data provide valuable insight into the changes in the land degradation for forest areas from 2000 to 2020.

Figure 2: Forest Land Degradation in 2020 — Africa continued to have the highest level of forest land degradation, while Europe also showed a notably high level.

“Forest Land Degradation in 2020” (Figure 2) presents the amount of land degradation in different geographical areas relative to each other. It can be easily seen that the graph depicts a noticeable difference in the amount of forest land degradation among the analyzed areas. Namely, Africa has the highest value, followed by Europe. Oceania also has a significant value of forest land degradation. In comparison, North America, South & Central America, and Asia have a lesser amount of degraded land than the first three areas. East Asia and the Caribbean, for example, have extremely low values.

It is essential to note that Africa is the most notable area in Figure 2. Its value is several times higher than Europe’s or Asia’s value, suggesting that, in 2020, Africa had the largest amount of degraded forest land among all the listed areas in the graph. This data is valuable because it demonstrates that although some areas may have a significant amount of degraded land, the overall amount may seem low on a global scale. Thus, each individual country, region, or continent should be taken into consideration when analyzing forest land degradation.

Another observation is that Europe has a relatively high value of degraded land. However, the value depicted in “Trends in the Land Degraded” (Figure 3) speaks about the different aspects of the issue. Figure 3 indicates the trends in the data, whereas Figure 2 only displays the amount of degraded land in 2020. The trends are crucial to analyze because they present valuable information on the progression of the issue. Africa, for example, has a very low value in Figure 3, equal to approximately – 450. This value suggests that the amount of land degraded in Africa decreased from the initial point of measurement. The negative value implies a negative trend, and it can be assumed that this area is improving. However, when one compares Figure 3 to Figure 2, “Forest Land Degradation in 2020,” a question emerges: if the value of trend is negative, why is the value in Figure 2 still relatively high?

Figure 3: Trends in the Land Degraded — The graph shows that forest degradation changed differently across regions, with Europe experiencing the largest increase while Africa showed a downward trend.

To the contrary, Europe has a positive trend, equal to approximately 400, which is the highest positive value among all areas. This positive trend signifies that the amount of degraded land increased throughout the analyzed time frame. At the same time, the value in Figure 2 for Europe is relatively high. Therefore, Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the changes that occurred in Africa and Europe from the perspective of the 2000 – 2020 trends in land degradation. The graphs suggest that although Africa may have a negative trend, its value in Figure 2 is still high. This indicates that even though the rate of degradation may slow down or reverse, the overall degradation remains severe compared to the starting point. On the other hand, Europe has a positive trend, but its value in Figure 2 is also high, which means that the value of this area increased throughout the analyzed time frame. Thus, two graphs indicate that the overall situation for the forest land degradation in these two areas has not improved.

The Middle East and Central Asia also have positive trends, but their values are relatively low compared to Europe. North America and Oceania have negative trends, but their values are also low. South Asia and Southeastern Asia, on the contrary, have low positive trends. Overall, the trends differ significantly among the listed geographical areas.

“Forest Land Degradation in 2000” (Figure 1) indicates the amount of land degradation in different areas relative to each other in 2000. Similar to the situation in 2020, Africa has the highest value of forest land degradation. However, compared to the 2020 value (Figure 2), Europe, Oceania, South America, North America, and Asia also have relatively high values. Notably, East Asia and the Caribbean have low values in 2000.

Comparing the data presented in Figures 2 and 1, one can see the changes that occurred from 2000 to 2020. Some areas degraded, some improved. However, the graphs only present the current situation and the situation in the past. The most valuable piece of information is presented in Figure 3, which depicts trends – the changes that occurred throughout the analyzed time frame. Hence, Figures 1, 2, and 3 together present a comprehensive view of the issue.

It is important to note that a large area does not necessarily have a high value. Africa, for example, has a high value, but its trend is negative and relatively high compared to other areas. Another important observation is that although Europe has a high value, its trend is positive and extremely high compared to other areas. This suggests that each area should be considered separately, and generalizations should be avoided when analyzing the data.

In fact, Figures 1, 2, and 3 demonstrate that one should be particularly concerned about forest degradation in Africa and Europe. The other areas may have lower values or negative trends; hence, they are not as critical. However, these two areas require more attention.

The graphs also offer valuable insight into the situation with the increasing number of forests. Although the area covered by forests may increase, the natural forests may disappear. This phenomenon occurs when plantations replace the natural forests. Therefore, the increasing number of forests does not necessarily indicate better health of the forests. Moreover, the data provided by these graphs only depicts the situation with the forest land degradation. However, it is essential to keep in mind that forests undergo multiple processes, and these processes are crucial to analyzing the health of the forests.

The value of these graphs is limited by the fact that the data only shows the situation with the forests without specifying the causes of degradation. There are numerous factors that can affect forests, such as human activities, forest fires, urbanization, economic development, climate change, and so on. Hence, when interpreting the data, it is essential to consider the context of the situation and remember that the forests are complex ecosystems that require special care. It is also important to consider the fact that the terms forest cover, tree-cover loss, deforestation, and forest degradation are not necessarily synonymous, so careful consideration should be applied when analyzing them.

Figure 4: Combined Forest Land Degradation Dashboard — Comparing forest degradation across 2000, 2020, and the overall trend shows that forest health and degradation patterns differ considerably between regions.

Overall, the three Tableau graphs (Figures 1, 2, and 3) offer a valuable insight into the changes in the forest land degradation from 2000 to 2020. They depict the current situation, the situation in the past, and the trends that occurred throughout the analyzed time frame. The graphs together present a comprehensive view of the issue.

Africa has the highest value in the 2000 comparison graph (Figure 1) and the 2020 comparison graph (Figure 2), whereas Europe has a relatively high value in the 2020 comparison graph (Figure 2) and a relatively high trend value (Figure 3). Other areas have lower values or trends that equal approximately zero. Thus, these graphs (Figures 1, 2, and 3) can be used to assess forest degradation on a large scale, analyze the trends, and pay particular attention to areas with high values.

I believe that it would be wrong to argue that only one story is true. In fact, not only the story of increasing forests is true, but the story of disappearing natural forests is also true. These stories can occur at different rates and in different areas. Furthermore, Figures 1, 2, and 3 demonstrate that the health of the forests of the world is not uniform, so forests of different areas should be reviewed separately. Finally, it is crucial to ensure that the natural forests are protected and carefully maintained.

It is important to remember that protecting the forests and ensuring their health will not only benefit the environment but also the economy and social well-being.