Mapping and Forecasting Land Use: The Present and Future of Planning

By Paulo Pereira

Mapping and Forecasting Land Use: The Present and Future of Planning is a comprehensive reference on the use of technologies to map land use, focusing on GIS and remote sensing applications and methodologies for land use monitoring. This book addresses transversal topics such as urbanisation, biodiversity loss, climate change, ecosystem services and participatory planning, with the pros and cons of various aerial technologies in mapping and land use. It follows a multidisciplinary approach and provides opinions and evidence from leading researchers working in academic institutions across the globe. The book's second half moves from theory and research advancement into case studies, compiling global examples to provide real-world context and evidence of the techniques and applications.

Mapping and Forecasting Land Use is a valuable guide for graduates, academics and researchers in the fields of geography, geographic information science and land use science who want to effectively apply GIS and remote sensing capabilities to mapping or wider land studies. Researchers in geosciences, environmental science and agriculture will also find this of value in utilising 21st-century technologies in their field.

• Provides a guide to land use mapping technologies, including GIS and remote sensing
• Covers a wide field of interdisciplinary subjects related to GIS applications in land use
• Features global case studies alongside exploring theory and current research in the field

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Aug 18, 2022
• ISBN: 9780323909488

Book preview

Preface

Land use/cover (LULC) change (LULCC) is one of the most critical drivers of change, with a tremendous impact on the ecosystems and their services (Pereira, 2020). It is undeniable that LULCC and climate changes are responsible for biodiversity loss and land degradation. To reverse this situation, several initiatives have been established at the global (e.g. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations Decade on Restoration, Land Degradation Neutrality, Aichi Biodiversity Targets) and regional levels (e.g. European Union Biodiversity Strategy 2030 and European Union Soil Strategy 2030). Overall, many efforts have been taken to reverse the current degradation trend that has been dramatic for biodiversity and human well-being. It is vital to act now before it is too late to reverse this trend. Climate change is occurring, and temperatures are beating records around the world, and there is an increase in the frequency and intensity of heatwave. Also, biodiversity is decreasing dramatically on all continents at a rate never experimented (WWF, 2020). We are going towards the sixth mass extinction that is mainly attributed to human causes. Land use change is one of the most important.

Mapping it is essential to understand the spatial changes and how they operate at different spatiotemporal scales. Forecasting future land uses is even more critical since we can understand LULC use patterns considering different scenarios. This is essential for planning and management. Complex spatial models (e.g. cellular automata, Markov chains, agent-based models, and evolutionary models) have demonstrated a great approach to mapping and forecasting land use through spatial simulation and modelling processes. They have helped to analyse the driving mechanisms and spatial dynamics of land use from the past into the future towards identifying potential social and environmental impacts. These models are one of the most effective approaches for land use management once they can deal with dynamic processes under different ‘what-if’ scenarios. There is an increased need for practical tools to manage the rapidly changing landscapes. Mapping and forecasting land use may be the key to promoting better information about future landscape dynamics.

The targets and challenges of sustainable land use management are vast, and land use plays a critical role in achieving many Sustainable Development Goals. Strategies for sustainable land use management can resolve future challenges related to food, water, and energy provision, biodiversity conservation, and climate change mitigation and contribute to poverty reduction.

This book addresses many of these subjects. It is dedicated to a wide circle of readers such as graduates, academics, researchers, and planners who deal with the task of environmental and geosciences. This book consists of the following key features:

1. Provides a guide to land use mapping technologies (e.g. geographic information system, remote sensing, and complex spatial models) and

2. Covers interdisciplinary subjects related to spatial planning and land use management.

Chapter 1 discusses land use changes and ecosystem services. Chapter 2 investigates complex spatial models to study future LULCCs coupled with participatory planning. Chapter 3 presents a theoretical approach related to peri-urban policies. Chapter 4 outlines methods and techniques for modelling agricultural land use changes. Chapter 5 discusses the current challenges to representing human decision-making in land use models. Chapter 6 analyse the interaction between LULC and climatic and hydrological extremes in lowlands. Chapter 7 performs a literature review to identify the drivers responsible for LULC in drylands. Chapter 8 projects different LULCC scenarios in a watershed. Chapter 9 uses a participatory approach focused on land management for coastal flooding prevention. Lastly, an evaluation of future LULCC impacts was developed for different case studies worldwide in Chapters 10–13.

The editors are grateful to Elsevier for the opportunity to edit this book. We also appreciate the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Special thanks go to all authors who contributed their chapters to this book.

Paulo Pereira, Eduardo Gomes and Jorge Rocha

References

Pereira, 2020 Pereira P. Ecosystem services in a changing environment. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;702 135008.

WWF, 2020 WWF. (2020). Living Planet Report 2020 - Bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Almond, R. E. A., Grooten M., & Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Chapter 1

Land-use changes and ecosystem services

Paulo Pereira¹, Miguel Inacio¹, Marius Kalinauskas¹, Katažyna Bogdzevič¹, Igor Bogunovic² and Wenwu Zhao³,⁴,    ¹Environmental Management Laboratory, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania,    ²Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia,    ³State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, P.R. China,    ⁴Institute of Land Surface System and Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, P.R. China

Abstract

Land abandonment, urbanisation and agricultural intensification are the most important drivers of ecosystem change. Their spatiotemporal evolution is complex and depends on many factors and interact intricately. These changes affect ecosystem capacity to supply the quality and quantity of ecosystem services (ESs). Therefore it is critical to understand the impacts of land abandonment, urbanisation and agricultural intensification on ES supply. This chapter aims to review the impacts of these three drivers of change on regulating, provisioning and cultural ES. Overall, urbanisation and agricultural intensification have high impact on the ecosystems the most detrimental effects on regulating, provisioning and cultural ES supply. Land abandonment and the consequent afforestation improved several ESs, mainly regulating and cultural. Except for water supply, the ES is dependent on agricultural land use and cultural heritage. Land abandonment improves several ESs. However, to maintain multifunctional landscape functionalities, it is also key to preserve the population in rural areas to maintain the functionality of agriculture, grassland ecosystems and the ES supply. Limiting urban expansion and adopting more sustainable farming practices are key to reverse the negative impacts of urbanisation and agricultural intensification on ES.

Keywords

Land abandonment; urbanisation; agricultural intensification; ecosystem services

1.1 Background

Land-use changes are one of the most important drivers of ecosystem change. They occur at different spatiotemporal scales and are driven by environmental, socio, economic and political aspects (Pereira, 2020). Presently, the most critical land-use drivers of change are (1) land abandonment, (2) urbanisation and (3) agricultural intensification. Land abandonment is a phenomenon that is occurring in all continents, that is, Europe (e.g., Lasanta et al., 2017), Asia (e.g., Zhang et al., 2016), America (e.g., Grau & Aide, 2008), Africa (e.g., Holden et al., 2021) and Oceania (e.g., Beilin et al., 2014) and has significant implications on the ecosystems affected. The drivers that trigger land abandonment are complex, but they are mainly related to political issues (e.g., Common Agriculture Policy in European member countries, regime change in European Eastern countries, wars and conflicts) (Lasanta et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2019), socio-economic reasons (e.g., search for better living conditions, unemployment) (e.g., Muñoz-Rios et al., 2020), environmental disasters (e.g., nuclear disasters) (e.g., Lyons et al., 2020), farm size (lower yields in small farms) (Levers et al., 2018), weather conditions (e.g., persistent droughts that affect crop harvest) (e.g., White et al., 2018) and suboptimal conditions for agriculture (Levers et al., 2018). More recently, climate change is an additional disturbance to migration and land abandonment (e.g., Berchin et al., 2017). Although land abandonment is triggered by ecological, social, economic and political crises, several researchers defend that this process represents an opportunity to nature and contribute to biodiversity improvement (e.g., Thompson et al., 2018). However, this is not true for all ecosystems. For instance, previous works highlighted that land abandonment reduces grassland biodiversity due to afforestation (e.g., Jacoboski et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). Overall, this rewilding process due to land abandonment increases habitat quality and expands the liveable areas for wildlife (e.g., Cromsigt et al., 2018).

The urbanisation process is also a consequence of land abandonment, increasing the number of persons in a specific area. The high flux of population towards urban areas is provoking cities expansion. Nowadays, 55% of the population live in urban areas, and it is expected that by 2050 it will be 68%. This process is especially fast in Asia, South America and Africa.¹ The urbanisation process occurs at different steps, but it is especially dramatic in the developing countries where migrants live in precarious conditions without access to basic needs and are often affected by severe health diseases (e.g., Kusuma & Babu, 2018; Mberu et al., 2017; Mitra, 2010). Although the most severe problems related to the urbanisation process are observed in the developing countries, this trend is also observed in the western world, that is, Europe (e.g., Ehrlich et al., 2018), North America (e.g., Dong et al., 2019) and Australia (Gallagher et al., 2020). Urbanisation has negative impacts on the environmental, social and economic dimensions. Urban development is one of the major causes of land consumption and degradation (e.g., impermeabilisation of fertile soils with high agriculture value), habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss and climate change (e.g., Akın & Erdoğan, 2020; Canedoli et al., 2018; Sarkodie et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2018), air, soil and water pollution (Pereira et al., 2022). Also, there is an increase in poverty, traffic fatalities (Lawal Dano et al., 2020), stress levels (e.g., Berezhansky & Tataurschikova, 2021), obesity (e.g., Wang et al., 2020), inequalities (e.g., Kuddus et al., 2020), crime (e.g., Erin et al., 2019), municipality costs associated to infrastructure development (e.g., roads, pipelines, waste management) (e.g., Richiedei & Tira, 2020) and health costs due to the exposure to high pollution or extreme events (e.g., heatwaves) (e.g., Lu et al., 2019; Majeed & Ozturk, 2020). Therefore urbanisation may induce significant trade-offs that need to be considered before developing an urban plan.

The population growth and the changing food habits (e.g., high meeting) are increasing the food demand and the need for land for crop production. This demand is increasing deforestation dramatically in several areas of the globe for livestock production (Santos & Almeida, 2018), palm oil explorations (Cisneros et al., 2021), vineyards expansion (Glavan et al., 2020), avocado plantations (Cho et al., 2021), olive, cocoa, mango and orange orchards (Brown, Berninger, et al., 2020; Gharibreza et al., 2020; Michel-Dounias et al., 2015; Müller Carneiro et al., 2019), to mention some. Agricultural intensification has dramatic impacts on the environment and is a cause of land degradation (Pereira et al., 2020), biodiversity loss (Dudley & Alexander, 2017) and climate change (Praveen & Sharma, 2019). For instance, it is expected that in 2050 the agricultural area will increase 70% (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification[UNCCD], 2014), and this will increase the area subjected to agricultural land degradation. Intense agriculture is also responsible for biodiversity decrease, and it is considered one of the most important drivers of species extinction after overexploitation (Maxwell et al., 2016). Currently, 94% of the mammals (excluding humans) living on earth are livestock (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Also, agriculture intensive practices are responsible for 26% of the global greenhouse gases emissions, mainly from livestock and fish farms. Along the supply chain, the practices applied in farmland management (e.g., machinery, fertiliser, manure application) are the most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).

Land abandonment, urbanisation and agricultural intensification have essential impacts on the ecosystems capacity to provide supplies and goods. Ecosystem services (ES) are understood as the direct and indirect benefits of humans from nature. They are usually divided into regulating (e.g., air quality, microclimate, carbon sequestration), provisioning (e.g., food, fodder) and cultural (e.g., recreation, landscape aesthetics). Global environmental change factors highly affect ES quality and quantity supply. For instance, in 2014, it was estimated that 60% all ESs were degraded (Pereira, 2020; UNCCD, 2014). Therefore it is essential to evaluate the impacts of the most critical land use and land cover (LULC) drivers of change on ES. This chapter aims to revise the impacts of land abandonment, urbanisation and agricultural intensification on regulating, provisioning and cultural ES supply.

1.2 Regulating ecosystem services

Land abandonment (afforestation) has several benefits on regulating ES (Fig. 1.1A). It is well known that vegetation can capture particulates (e.g., particulate matter10, particulate matter2.5) and chemical elements in suspension, improving air quality, essential to reduce health problems related to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (Pereira et al., 2022). In addition, they also contribute to oxygen production (e.g., Zhang et al., 2018). Afforestation also can increase microclimate regulation and, if this occurs near urban areas, reduce the effect of urban heat islands (e.g., Yao et al., 2020). This will increase the thermal comfort of the urban areas, especially during extreme events (e.g., heatwaves) (e.g., Karimi et al., 2020). The vegetation development also increases the capacity of the ecosystems to store carbon and mitigate the human impact on climate change, as observed in several works (e.g., Brown, 2020; Duffy et al., 2020). Afforestation is considered key strategy to meet national (e.g., Burke et al., 2021) and global goals (Yu et al., 2020) regarding climate change mitigation. Vegetation development increases the capacity to remove water pollutants. Several chemical elements can be retained in soils and roots or consumed by plants (e.g., Pereira et al., 2022). This will reduce the number of nutrients/pollutants to be leached or transported in overland flow from urban and agricultural areas, affecting ground and surface water quality (e.g., Liu et al., 2018a,b; Rowiński et al., 2018). This will also reduce eutrophication problems or surface water pollution events that are very detrimental to aquatic ecosystems biodiversity (e.g., Carneiro et al., 2020; Desmit et al., 2018). Afforestation contributes to flooding regulation in urban areas because vegetation cover increases the water infiltration capacity, decreasing the catastrophic impacts of these events (Dittrich et al., 2019; Nadal-Romero et al., 2021). For instance, afforestation in the catchment upstream reduces the flood impacts in lowland areas. Water is retained in the soil during extreme rainfall events, reducing the flow peak and the flood destruction potential (e.g., Iacob et al., 2017; Johnen et al., 2021). Therefore afforestation reduces the vulnerability of downstream urban areas to flood impact. The impacts of land abandonment on pollination are diverse. On the one hand, land abandonment may decrease grassland richness and pollinators (e.g., Shinohara et al., 2019), and to some extent, grasslands need to be managed in order to maintain their biodiversity (e.g., low-intensity livestock grazing or wild animals grazing) to not disappear (Garrido et al., 2019; Ingerpuu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2021). This reduces the ES provided by grasslands (Temperton et al., 2019). On the other hand, afforestation also increases biodiversity, which may be necessary for pollinators. Therefore the impacts of land abandonment and afforestation on pollination can be site-specific (Lautenbach et al., 2017). Afforestation reduces particle detachment and sediment transport due to soil protection by vegetation cover and interception (e.g., Xiong et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2020). This significantly reduces soil degradation and water bodies siltation, which have substantial negative impacts on dams (Kang et al., 2019; Zethof et al., 2019). Finally, afforestation is beneficial to regulate pests and diseases because it increases the biodiversity and microclimate and, therefore, ecosystem protection (e.g., Dinnys Roese et al., 2020) (Fig. 1.1A).

Figure 1.1 Impacts of land use land cover changes on regulating ES. (A) Afforestation, (B) urbanisation and (C) agricultural intensification.

The urbanisation process dramatically reduces the ecosystems’ capacity to regulate air quality (e.g., Qiu & He, 2019) (Fig. 1.1B). In addition, there is a pollution increase due to anthropogenic activities that also drastically impact human health (e.g., Archibald et al., 2018). Urbanisation increases the temperature drastically in the cities (urban heat island) due to LULC change. Urban fabric (e.g., concrete, asphalt) and soil sealing decrease the albedo and store a large amount of heat, increasing surface and air temperature (e.g., Bueno de Morais et al., 2017; Erdem Okumus & Terzi, 2021). This reduces microclimate regulation, as observed in previous works (e.g., Palme & Salvati, 2021; Sanusi & Bidin, 2020). The urban heat island effect decreases cities thermal comfort and is associated with increase health diseases, especially during heatwaves (e.g., Heaviside et al., 2017; Parker, 2021). The land consumption imposed by urbanisation on other LULC (e.g., forest, agriculture, wetlands or grasslands) reduces the soil and vegetation dramatically to store carbon (Abd-Elmabod et al., 2019; Borges et al., 2021). Soil sealing destroys the capacity of soil to store carbon. Also, as urbanisation is made at the expense of vegetation removal, the capacity of green areas to store carbon is hampered (e.g., Lu et al., 2020; Romzaykina et al., 2020). Due to urbanisation, the decrease of soil and vegetation to store carbon drastically affects climate change mitigation strategies (e.g., Privitera et al., 2018). As in the case of carbon sequestration, sealing hampers soil capacities to purify water. The asphalt or concrete placed on the soil surface constitute an impediment to infiltration, and most of the water stays on the surface (e.g., water-logging) (e.g., Tobias et al., 2018; Xiao et al., 2020). Also, when soils are not sealed in urban areas, they can be compacted due to management (e.g., urban green areas management with tractors, foot traffic), increasing soil compaction (e.g., Yang & Zhang, 2011). This reduces the amount of water that can be purified. In cities, due to traffic circulation and industrial activities, water is highly polluted and goes through pipelines and overland flow to water bodies without any treatment, increasing contamination levels in water bodies and damaging aquatic biodiversity (Fanellie et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018a,b). Also, soil sealing and vegetation removal decrease the ecosystems’ capacity to regulate floods (Pinto et al., 2021; Recanatesi et al., 2017). The urban areas impermeabilisation and soil compaction increase the runoff peak and velocity and, therefore, the flood destructive capacity, leading to high material and life losses (e.g., Alaoui et al., 2018; Albano et al., 2017; Ghafghazi et al., 2019). These events are expected to increase in the context of climate change. Therefore it is essential to decrease soil sealing in urban areas and develop strategies to manage flood events efficiently (e.g., sponge cities, nature-based solutions) (Hettiarachchi et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2018; Lafortezza & Sanesi, 2019). Urbanisation has dramatic impacts on pollination because it implies destruction and habitat fragmentation of pollinators habitats. This is especially visible where the densification is high. In areas with low-density urbanisation, the impacts are negative (Wenzel et al., 2020). Also, the insecticides and pesticides used in urban parks and gardens hurt pollinators abundance and diversity (Baldock, 2020; Daniels et al., 2020). Impervious areas can increase or decrease the sediment transported to water bodies (Russell et al., 2017). Previous studies found that some types of concrete can be a sediment source (e.g., Ferreira et al., 2019). Therefore sealed soils can be a source of sediment. Urbanisation substantially reduces the ecosystem capacities to regulate soil erosion due to vegetation removal and the increase of sealed and bare soils highly compacted. The latter is a great source of sediment that can be transported through overland flow and pipelines and increase water bodies siltation and pollution (e.g., Ercoli et al., 2020; Hong et al., 2017; Marondedze & Schütt, 2020). Intense urbanisation is a cause of habitat and biodiversity loss. For instance, the decrease in bird diversity due to urbanisation increases the infestation of different invertebrates (e.g., mosquitos) (Sol et al., 2020). Also, some mosquitos can benefit from man-made environments since they do not have competitors or natural predators (e.g., Mogi et al., 2020). Several works observed that there is a high vulnerability of urban areas to pests, especially the ones located close to water environments (e.g., estuaries, lagoons, wetlands) (e.g., Sahar et al., 2021; Wilke et al., 2019) (Fig. 1.1B).

Agricultural intensification is expanded at the costs of deforestation (e.g., Kubitza et al., 2018), reducing the capacity of the ecosystems substantially to regulate air quality (Fig. 1.1C). The areas where agricultural intensification is used release a high greenhouse gas (e.g., livestock methane) (Bergier et al., 2019; Kopittke et al., 2019), pollutants (e.g., nitrogen) and particulate matter to the atmosphere (e.g., Lasko & Vandrevu, 2018; Lee et al., 2019). In order to reverse this trend, it is key to change our diet and apply more sustainable practices (e.g., organic farming, zero tillage) (Bais-Moleman et al., 2019; Pereira et al., 2018). In the same line, agricultural intensification due to deforestation decreases the ecosystem capacity to microclimate regulation (e.g., Nikonovas et al., 2020). Also, when native ecosystems such as peat swamps are substituted by industrial plantations (e.g., Palm oil), the microclimate regulation is strongly affected (Anamulai et al., 2019). In order to reverse this trend in the capacity to regulate microclimate, it is key to reverse the current deforestation trend. Agricultural intensification reduces the ecosystem’s capacity to store carbon due to vegetation removal, short rotations, monocultures (e.g., Chahal et al., 2021), tractor traffic, soil compaction (Hairiah et al., 2020), tillage (e.g., Maillard et al., 2018) and agrochemicals use to increase the carbon loss through the atmosphere and erosion. The carbon storage can be increased by increasing the rotation period, diversifying the cultures, mulching, reduced and zero tillage practices and decreasing agrochemicals application (e.g., Brown et al., 2021; Gómez-Muñoz et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2018; Reis Ferreira et al., 2020). The degradation imposed by agricultural intensification reduces soils’ capacity to purify water. For instance, the application of agrochemicals increases the metals and metalloids amount and acidification, increasing the number of soil pollutants (Kopittke et al., 2019). Also, the use of plastic in intensively managed areas is increasing soil contamination (e.g., Qi et al., 2020). The reduced capacity of soils to retain nutrients and water purification will increase the ground and surface water bodies contamination (e.g., eutrophication, pollutants accumulation) (e.g., Evans et al., 2019; Harrison et al., 2019; Kurwadkar, 2019). Intensively managed agricultural areas have a reduced capacity to flood regulation due to soil compaction (Bogunovic et al., 2020). Previous works argue that soil compaction increases flood events (e.g., Alaoui et al., 2018; Keller et al., 2019). Also, the conversion of forests into croplands dramatically reduces water retention and flood regulation (Barral et al., 2020). To reverse this trend, it is essential to reduce the use of heavy machinery and decrease the soil compaction levels. The use and abuse of agrochemicals in intensive agriculture are among the most known causes of pollinators diversity and abundance decrease (Millard et al., 2021; Peterson et al., 2021). For instance, they increase bee mortality (Siviter et al., 2021). Several works observed that grassland to cropland LULC has a detrimental impact on bees, even when these changes occurred long ago (e.g., Dixon et al., 2021; Le Provost et al., 2021). Land-use change and climate change can affect pollinator behaviour, species abundance, floral resources and nesting habitats (Dalsgaard, 2020). To reverse pollinators loss and increase their abundance, it is essential to reduce the levels of agricultural intensification (e.g., organic farming, decrease the use of agrochemicals, intercropping, farm diversification, crop rotation) and protect pollinators habitats (Kovács-Hostyánszki et al., 2017; Millard et al., 2021). Normally, intensively managed agricultural areas are bare. The weeds and grasses are removed using agrochemicals to reduce the competition with the crops for water and nutrients (e.g., Hussain et al., 2021; Mesnage et al., 2021). The vegetation removal decreases the soil capacity to regulate erosion. Also, tillage practices reduce soil aggregation and soil organic matter, increasing soil erodibility (e.g., Bottinelli et al., 2017; Thomaz & Antonelli, 2021). This will lead to a high sediment detachment and transport, hampering the soil erosion regulation ES. To restore this ES, it is key to reduce bare soil area using different techniques such as grass cover and mulching and protect soil against erosion agents (Pereira et al., 2018). Finally, intensive agricultural areas are dominated by monocultures that are extremely vulnerable to pest and diseases (e.g., He et al., 2019; Huuskonen et al., 2021). Pests and diseases dramatically reduce crop yield. A situation that is predicted to increase with climate change and affect food security (Donatelli et al., 2017). To reduce the pest and diseases incidence, it is key to increase cropland diversification and understand the relationship between the cultivated species and genotypes and the factors that affect these interactions. Implementing cultural management practices (e.g., weed management, regular tree pruning, infest pods removal, pods removal) may also help reduce pests and diseases incidence (e.g., Armengot et al., 2020; He et al., 2019). Natural strategies to control pests and disease include increasing soil quality, using legume crops, conserving seminatural habitats to diversity pollinators and cultivating legume crops to decrease chemical fertiliser application (e.g., Chabert & Sarthou, 2020) (Fig.