## 3 Classification of Global Land Development Phases
### LDPs Based on Forest Area and GDP Changes  
Based on FT theory and using forest growth changes, the world can be divided into three phases. However, socio-economic capacity is also an important part of environmental sustainability measurement represented in EKC theory [33; 34]. In addition, previous empirical EKC analysis indicated a strong relationship between forest area growth and economic improvement based on aforestation and reforestation mechanisms [48; 49]. Therefore, while forest stock represents the quality of the forest and environment, a quantity change needs to be compared with the appropriate capacity, i.e., from society. Therefore, GDP per capita and forest area change were compared to understand and properly represent LDPs. We classified the countries with thresholds set at 5000 USD and 10,000 USD of GDP per capita in 2010, which divides low-income countries, middle-income countries and high-income countries. The World Bank has classified countries using the WESP (the World Economic Situation and Prospects) by gross national income (GNI) per capita. Their classifications are <4085 USD for low-income and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**LDPs Classification** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Degradation Phase Based on** \\ **Forest Stock Change** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Restoration Phase Based on** \\ **Forest Stock Change** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sustainability Phase Based** \\ **on Forest Stock Change** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Restoration phase & \begin{tabular}{c} \\ **Ekström** \\ **Forest Stock Change** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Belarus, Brazil, Chile, China,** \\ **Cyprus, Estonia, Faroe Islands,** \\ **Gabon, Greenland, Indonesia,** \\ **Gabon, Greenland, Indonesia,** \\ **Ira, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya,** \\ **Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta,** \\ **Mexico, Monaco, Morocco,** \\ **Oman, Philippines, Qatar,** \\ **Romania, Singapore, Taiwan,** \\ **Trinidad and Tobago,** \\ **Ukraine, Venezuela** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, \\ Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, \\ Dominican Republic, \\ Hungary, India, \\ **Montemegro, Norway,** \\ **Poland, San Marino,** \\ **Slovakia, Slovenia** \\ **Austria, Belgium, Canada,** \\ **Czech Republic, Denmark,** \\ **Finland, France, Germany,** \\ **Italy, Japan, Netherlands,** \\ **New Zealand, Puerto Rico,** \\ **South Korea, Spain, Sweden,** \\ **Switzerland, Turkey, United** \\ **Kingdom, United States** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._  
Figure 5: LDPs classification by forest stock change. lower-middle-income countries and 4085-12,615 USD for upper-middle-income countries. Countries with GNI per capita > 12,615 USD are classified as high-income countries. However, they also aggregated data with GDP, exchange rate, purchasing power parity and gross domestic incomes because the timing of data availability was quite different for rapidly-developing countries. Therefore, we adopted a classification similar to the World Bank's, but still tried to consider the relationship between GDP and forest change [39; 50]. The countries in each economic zone were divided based on increasing and decreasing forest area, so six zones were classified as combinations; low economy with decreasing forest area, low economy with increasing forest area, middle economy with decreasing forest area, middle economy with increasing forest area, high economy with decreasing forest area and high income with increasing forest area [51; 52; 53]. Countries were divided with the breakpoints of 50 billion USD and 500 billion USD GDP prior to classification based on forest change [39; 50; 53]. Subsequently, GDP per capita and GDP zones were aggregated by scoring each zone from 0-5 to classify countries (Figure 6 and Table 1). Adding an economic measure for classification resulted in some countries remaining in the same LDPs classification, while other countries changed (see Figure 6 compared to Figure 5).