Model‐based global projections of future land‐use and land‐cover (LULC) change are frequently used in environmental assessments to study the impact of LULC change on environmental services and to provide decision support for policy. These projections are characterized by a high uncertainty in terms of quantity and allocation of projected changes, which can severely impact the results of environmental assessments. In this study, we identify hotspots of uncertainty, based on 43 simulations from 11 global‐scale LULC change models representing a wide range of assumptions of future biophysical and socioeconomic conditions. We attribute components of uncertainty to input data, model structure, scenario storyline and a residual term, based on a regression analysis and analysis of variance. From this diverse set of models and scenarios, we find that the uncertainty varies, depending on the region and the LULC type under consideration. Hotspots of uncertainty appear mainly at the edges of globally important biomes (e.g., boreal and tropical forests). Our results indicate that an important source of uncertainty in forest and pasture areas originates from different input data applied in the models. Cropland, in contrast, is more consistent among the starting conditions, while variation in the projections gradually increases over time due to diverse scenario assumptions and different modeling approaches. Comparisons at the grid cell level indicate that disagreement is mainly related to LULC type definitions and the individual model allocation schemes. We conclude that improving the quality and consistency of observational data utilized in the modeling process and improving the allocation mechanisms of LULC change models remain important challenges. Current LULC representation in environmental assessments might miss the uncertainty arising from the diversity of LULC change modeling approaches, and many studies ignore the uncertainty in LULC projections in assessments of LULC change impacts on climate, water resources or biodiversity.

There is an increasing evidence that smallholder farms contribute substantially to food production globally, yet spatially explicit data on agricultural field sizes are currently lacking. Automated field size delineation using remote sensing or the estimation of average farm size at subnational level using census data are two approaches that have been used. However, both have limitations, for example, automatic field size delineation using remote sensing has not yet been implemented at a global scale while the spatial resolution is very coarse when using census data. This paper demonstrates a unique approach to quantifying and mapping agricultural field size globally using crowdsourcing. A campaign was run in June 2017, where participants were asked to visually interpret very high resolution satellite imagery from Google Maps and Bing using the Geo‐Wiki application. During the campaign, participants collected field size data for 130 K unique locations around the globe. Using this sample, we have produced the most accurate global field size map to date and estimated the percentage of different field sizes, ranging from very small to very large, in agricultural areas at global, continental, and national levels. The results show that smallholder farms occupy up to 40% of agricultural areas globally, which means that, potentially, there are many more smallholder farms in comparison with the two different current global estimates of 12% and 24%. The global field size map and the crowdsourced data set are openly available and can be used for integrated assessment modeling, comparative studies of agricultural dynamics across different contexts, for training and validation of remote sensing field size delineation, and potential contributions to the Sustainable Development Goal of Ending hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Spatially explicit information on forest management at a global scale is critical for understanding the status of forests, for planning sustainable forest management and restoration, and conservation activities. Here, we produce the first reference data set and a prototype of a globally consistent forest management map with high spatial detail on the most prevalent forest management classes such as intact forests, managed forests with natural regeneration, planted forests, plantation forest (rotation up to 15 years), oil palm plantations, and agroforestry. We developed the reference dataset of 226 K unique locations through a series of expert and crowdsourcing campaigns using Geo-Wiki (https://www.geo-wiki.org/). We then combined the reference samples with time series from PROBA-V satellite imagery to create a global wall-to-wall map of forest management at a 100 m resolution for the year 2015, with forest management class accuracies ranging from 58% to 80%. The reference data set and the map present the status of forest ecosystems and can be used for investigating the value of forests for species, ecosystems and their services.

Land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) represents one of the key drivers of global environmental change. However, the processes and drivers of anthropogenic land-use activity are still overly simplistically implemented in terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs). The published results of these models are used in major assessments of processes and impacts of global environmental change, such as the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fully coupled models of climate, land use and biogeochemical cycles to explore land use–climate interactions across spatial scales are currently not available. Instead, information on land use is provided as exogenous data from the land-use change modules of integrated assessment models (IAMs) to TBMs. In this article, we discuss, based on literature review and illustrative analysis of empirical and modeled LULCC data, three major challenges of this current LULCC representation and their implications for land use–climate interaction studies: (I) provision of consistent, harmonized, land-use time series spanning from historical reconstructions to future projections while accounting for uncertainties associated with different land-use modeling approaches, (II) accounting for sub-grid processes and bidirectional changes (gross changes) across spatial scales, and (III) the allocation strategy of independent land-use data at the grid cell level in TBMs. We discuss the factors that hamper the development of improved land-use representation, which sufficiently accounts for uncertainties in the land-use modeling process. We propose that LULCC data-provider and user communities should engage in the joint development and evaluation of enhanced LULCC time series, which account for the diversity of LULCC modeling and increasingly include empirically based information about sub-grid processes and land-use transition trajectories, to improve the representation of land use in TBMs. Moreover, we suggest concentrating on the development of integrated modeling frameworks that may provide further understanding of possible land–climate–society feedbacks.

Conservation agriculture (CA) is widely promoted as a sustainable agricultural management strategy with the potential to alleviate some of the adverse effects of modern, industrial agriculture such as large‐scale soil erosion, nutrient leaching and overexploitation of water resources. Moreover, agricultural land managed under CA is proposed to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation through reduced emission of greenhouse gases, increased solar radiation reflection, and the sustainable use of soil and water resources. Due to the lack of official reporting schemes, the amount of agricultural land managed under CA systems is uncertain and spatially explicit information about the distribution of CA required for various modeling studies is missing. Here, we present an approach to downscale present‐day national‐level estimates of CA to a 5 arcminute regular grid, based on multicriteria analysis. We provide a best estimate of CA distribution and an uncertainty range in the form of a low and high estimate of CA distribution, reflecting the inconsistency in CA definitions. We also design two scenarios of the potential future development of CA combining present‐day data and an assessment of the potential for implementation using biophysical and socioeconomic factors. By our estimates, 122–215 Mha or 9%–15% of global arable land is currently managed under CA systems. The lower end of the range represents CA as an integrated system of permanent no‐tillage, crop residue management and crop rotations, while the high estimate includes a wider range of areas primarily devoted to temporary no‐tillage or reduced tillage operations. Our scenario analysis suggests a future potential of CA in the range of 533–1130 Mha (38%–81% of global arable land). Our estimates can be used in various ecosystem modeling applications and are expected to help identifying more realistic climate mitigation and adaptation potentials of agricultural practices.