Understanding geography is essential to understanding history, as many historical conflicts and historical developments were driven by geographical imperatives/constraints. But it's also very relevant to contemporary geopolitics and geoeconomics.
Not much surprising here i would say, except for Moldova. I didn't expect it to be so high, though in hindsight now that i think of it, whenever i have travelled in that region i did see mostly agricultural fields. The climate can be somewhat extreme there by western European standards, with cold winters and warm summers, and the precipitation is not as high as in western/northern Europe, but i guess it's still good enough for decent agriculture. I know the Moldovan SSR was a major agricultural provider in Soviet times.
Also a reminder that while China is sometimes considered an agricultural powerhouse, its geography is actually not necessarily that great, and the amount of land suitable for agriculture relative to its large population is relatively low by comparison to the US for example. They have had to learn to be very innovative and efficient with their use of land for food production.
You can also see the clear geographical advantage that western Europe enjoyed, enabling them to sustain fairly large populations for their size.
I was thinking it might be cool to have a dedicated geography community at some point.
SlayGuevara - 4w
Moldova is so fertile because of their specific type of earth called Chernozem. The Chernozem belt in Europe also largely goes through Ukraine which is probably why it's also on the list.
5
SouffleHuman @lemmy.ml - 4w
I'm personally surprised there isn't more variation in the Korean peninsula, given that the Southern part is considered much more arable than the Northern part.
(Also lol at New Zealand being cut in half)
4
cfgaussian - 4w
To add some context to the other response in which i mentioned the role of climate differences, here are some temperature and precipitation maps where you can see (if you zoom in) the differences between North and South Korea:
3
SouffleHuman @lemmy.ml - 4w
The temperature map is particularly stark. That clears up a lot of my confusion. Thanks!
4
cfgaussian - 4w
Yeah the precipitation differences are not very visible on the global scale map, that was a bad choice on my part (mainly because there are parts of the world that are way more rainy or way more dry, so the smaller differences on the peninsula don't stand out), but they are more evident if you choose a more zoomed in map:
And here's temperature at the same zoom level:
1
cfgaussian - 4w
Some of that is also an artifact of how wide the bands of percentages covered by each color are. The yellowish color in the Korean peninsula covers everything between 10%-20% which is a fairly broad range. The difference between two countries of different but adjacent colors could be less than the difference between countries of the same color, if they happen to land at opposite ends of that color's range.
According to this source the DPRK is ranked 54 and with 19% apparently has more arable land than South Korea ranked 68 with 15%. Other sources more or less confirm this, at least in the approximate percentages if not the exact ranking. The reason why conditions in the south are still generally better for agriculture is because the climate is significantly harsher (colder and drier) in the north.
And yeah, people who make maps often tend to leave out New Zealand, it is just too inconveniently located.
cfgaussian in economics
Countries by percentage of arable land area
Understanding geography is essential to understanding history, as many historical conflicts and historical developments were driven by geographical imperatives/constraints. But it's also very relevant to contemporary geopolitics and geoeconomics.
Not much surprising here i would say, except for Moldova. I didn't expect it to be so high, though in hindsight now that i think of it, whenever i have travelled in that region i did see mostly agricultural fields. The climate can be somewhat extreme there by western European standards, with cold winters and warm summers, and the precipitation is not as high as in western/northern Europe, but i guess it's still good enough for decent agriculture. I know the Moldovan SSR was a major agricultural provider in Soviet times.
Also a reminder that while China is sometimes considered an agricultural powerhouse, its geography is actually not necessarily that great, and the amount of land suitable for agriculture relative to its large population is relatively low by comparison to the US for example. They have had to learn to be very innovative and efficient with their use of land for food production.
You can also see the clear geographical advantage that western Europe enjoyed, enabling them to sustain fairly large populations for their size.
I was thinking it might be cool to have a dedicated geography community at some point.
Moldova is so fertile because of their specific type of earth called Chernozem. The Chernozem belt in Europe also largely goes through Ukraine which is probably why it's also on the list.
I'm personally surprised there isn't more variation in the Korean peninsula, given that the Southern part is considered much more arable than the Northern part.
(Also lol at New Zealand being cut in half)
To add some context to the other response in which i mentioned the role of climate differences, here are some temperature and precipitation maps where you can see (if you zoom in) the differences between North and South Korea:
The temperature map is particularly stark. That clears up a lot of my confusion. Thanks!
Yeah the precipitation differences are not very visible on the global scale map, that was a bad choice on my part (mainly because there are parts of the world that are way more rainy or way more dry, so the smaller differences on the peninsula don't stand out), but they are more evident if you choose a more zoomed in map:
And here's temperature at the same zoom level:
Some of that is also an artifact of how wide the bands of percentages covered by each color are. The yellowish color in the Korean peninsula covers everything between 10%-20% which is a fairly broad range. The difference between two countries of different but adjacent colors could be less than the difference between countries of the same color, if they happen to land at opposite ends of that color's range.
According to this source the DPRK is ranked 54 and with 19% apparently has more arable land than South Korea ranked 68 with 15%. Other sources more or less confirm this, at least in the approximate percentages if not the exact ranking. The reason why conditions in the south are still generally better for agriculture is because the climate is significantly harsher (colder and drier) in the north.
And yeah, people who make maps often tend to leave out New Zealand, it is just too inconveniently located.