Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
 Defining,	
  Measuring,	
  &	
  Incen1vizing	
  
Sustainable	
  Land	
  Use	
  to	
  Meet	
  Human	
  Needs	
  
Kimberly	
...
Land	
  is	
  limited	
  on	
  the	
  blue	
  planet…	
  	
  
NASA	
  PPM	
  	
  
2	
  @KA_Nicholas	
  
3	
  
Yann	
  Arthus-­‐Bertrand	
  Guyra	
  
Vincent	
  Laforet	
  
@KA_Nicholas	
  
4	
  
#GlobalGoals	
   hap://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/	
  
Project	
  Research	
  Ques1ons	
  	
  
1.  What	
  tradeoffs	
  does	
  future	
  land	
  use	
  change	
  in	
  
Sweden	
...
FOTO: ELLIOT ELLIOT/JOHNÉR
GenerationsmålSWEDEN’S ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
•  Sustainable Forests
•  Varied Agricultural L...
Assessing	
  Tradeoffs	
  	
  
7	
  
Provisioning	
  	
  
Regula/ng	
  
Cultural	
  
@KA_Nicholas	
  
Tradeoffs	
  for	
  Sustainable	
  Land	
  Use	
  
8	
  
Aesthetics
@KA_Nicholas	
  
Measuring:	
  Selec1ng	
  indicators	
  	
  
9	
  
Shannon	
  index	
  
Red	
  listed	
  	
  
bird	
  abundance	
  
%	
  a...
Measuring	
  Sustainable	
  Land	
  Use	
  
10	
  
Shannon	
  index	
  
Red	
  listed	
  	
  
bird	
  abundance	
  
%	
  a...
Aesthetics
Climate	
  Projec1ons	
  
whole is determined, as demands are not specified for
the individual land use types wi...
S104 AMBIO 2015, 44(Suppl. 1):S102–S112
Malinga	
  et	
  al.,	
  2015,	
  Ambio	
  
High	
  	
  
Intensity	
  
Low	
  
Int...
Current	
  
	
  
	
  
Double	
  Cereal	
  	
  
Produc1on	
  
	
  
	
  
Intensifica1on	
  	
  
Produc/on 	
   	
   	
  Crop	...
Current	
  land	
  use	
  in	
  Sweden	
  
Cropland	
  
Map:	
  Åke	
  Nilsson,	
  MarkInfo,	
  Swedish	
  survey	
  of	
 ...
Cropland	
  changes	
  under	
  land	
  use	
  scenarios	
  
Cropland	
  Area	
  	
  
(m	
  ha)	
  	
  
3.3	
   6.0	
   2....
Nitrogen	
  loss	
  under	
  land	
  use	
  scenarios	
  
	
   	
  Current	
  	
   	
   	
  	
  	
  2x	
  cereals	
  	
  	...
Results:	
  Change	
  in	
  Ecosystem	
  Services	
  	
  
Aesthetics Aesthetics Aesthetics
Current 	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
...
Op1mal	
  trade-­‐off	
  between	
  conflic1ng	
  
ecosystem	
  services	
  
Marginal	
  Cost	
  
of	
  biodiversity	
  loss...
19	
  
Financial	
  support	
  from:	
  
•  	
  Lund	
  University	
  Pufendorf	
  Advanced	
  Study	
  Group	
  
•  Swedi...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Defining, Measuring, and Incentivizing Sustainable Land Use

208 views

Published on

Project update presented at American Geophysical Union 2016.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Defining, Measuring, and Incentivizing Sustainable Land Use

  1. 1.  Defining,  Measuring,  &  Incen1vizing   Sustainable  Land  Use  to  Meet  Human  Needs   Kimberly  A.  Nicholas1,  Mark  V.  Brady,  Stefan  Olin,  Johan  Ekroos,   Jonathan  W.  Seaquist,  Veiko  Lehsten,  Henrik  G.  Smith,  Marianne  Hall   1Lund  University  Centre  for  Sustainability  Studies,  Lund,  Sweden     @KA_Nicholas    kimnicholas.com       13  December  2016   Photo:  Tim  Lindstedt,  Flickr  
  2. 2. Land  is  limited  on  the  blue  planet…     NASA  PPM     2  @KA_Nicholas  
  3. 3. 3   Yann  Arthus-­‐Bertrand  Guyra   Vincent  Laforet   @KA_Nicholas  
  4. 4. 4   #GlobalGoals   hap://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/  
  5. 5. Project  Research  Ques1ons     1.  What  tradeoffs  does  future  land  use  change  in   Sweden  imply  for  key  ecosystem  services?     2.  How  do  changes  in  ecosystem  service  delivery   from  change  in  land  use  affect  human  welfare?   3.  How  can  maximum  human  welfare  from  land   use  be  incen1vized?     4.  How  do  Swedish  land  use  decisions  affect   overall  ecosystem  service  delivery  globally?   5   Ecosystem   structure   Ecosystem   func1on   Ecosystem   service   Benefit   Value   Ajer  Haines-­‐Young  and  Potschin,  2014   @KA_Nicholas  
  6. 6. FOTO: ELLIOT ELLIOT/JOHNÉR GenerationsmålSWEDEN’S ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES •  Sustainable Forests •  Varied Agricultural Landscape •  Zero Eutrophication •  Reduced Climate Impact •  Clean Air •  Natural Acidification Only •  Flourishing Lakes & Streams •  Good-Quality Groundwater •  Balanced Marine Environment •  Rich Diversity of Plant & Animal Life
  7. 7. Assessing  Tradeoffs     7   Provisioning     Regula/ng   Cultural   @KA_Nicholas  
  8. 8. Tradeoffs  for  Sustainable  Land  Use   8   Aesthetics @KA_Nicholas  
  9. 9. Measuring:  Selec1ng  indicators     9   Shannon  index   Red  listed     bird  abundance   %  applied  N  retained   Kg  CO2-­‐e/m2     Tons  1mber   Tons  cereal   Aesthetics @KA_Nicholas  
  10. 10. Measuring  Sustainable  Land  Use   10   Shannon  index   Red  listed     bird  abundance   %  applied  N  retained   Kg  CO2-­‐e/m2     Tons  1mber   Tons  cereal   Aesthetics LPJ-­‐Guess   Regression     model   Land  cover     analysis   @KA_Nicholas  
  11. 11. Aesthetics Climate  Projec1ons   whole is determined, as demands are not specified for the individual land use types within this group. The maximization of the total probability at each individual location is checked against a set of conversion rules as specified in a conversion matrix (Figs. 2, 3). This conversion matrix indicates which conversions are possible for each land use type, e.g., the conversion from agriculture to forest is not possible during one (yearly) time step as a conse- quence of the time it takes to grow a forest. Conversions that are excluded by the conversion matrix overrule the maximization of total probability. Instead, the land use type with the highest total conversion it is also possible to enforce a conver between land use types. When a specific conver is expected within a specific number of years conversion will be enforced as soon as the numb years is exceeded. Figure 3 illustrates this for conversion of shrubland to forest which takes p after a number of years depending on the gro conditions at the location. Such locally determ conversions are the result of specific managem practices or vegetation dynamics. Due to the sp variation in local conditions, these time periods represented in a map (Fig. 3). Locally determined conversions will, to s Land Use (i,t) Land Use (i,t+1) Does the allocated area equal the demanded area for all land use types/groups Is the conversion allowed? Make all enforced conversions Assign land use with highest total probability to location (i) Land Use type specific condition Conversion Elasticity (lu) Competitive advantage (lu) Location and land use type spec conditions Location suitability (I,lu) Neighborhood suitability (I,lu) Update land use history information Land use history NO NO YES YES Iterativelyadapt competitiveadvantageof landusetypes Timesteps Agriculture Abandoned farmland Shrubland Forest Agriculture Abandoned farmland Shrubland Forest Conversion matrix Fig. 2 Flow-chart of the allocation procedure of the Dyna-CLUE model 1170 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1167– Dyna-­‐CLUE   Land  Use  Scenarios   Land  Use    Modeling   LPJ-­‐Guess   Regression  Models   Ecosystem     Service     Modeling   Visualize   Assess  tradeoffs   Policy  analysis   Analysis   Methods   @KA_Nicholas  
  12. 12. S104 AMBIO 2015, 44(Suppl. 1):S102–S112 Malinga  et  al.,  2015,  Ambio   High     Intensity   Low   Intensity   Contras1ng  farming  intensity   @KA_Nicholas   12  
  13. 13. Current       Double  Cereal     Produc1on       Intensifica1on     Produc/on      Crop  Area        N  input   (tons)          (ha)        (kg)   Land  Use  Scenarios  Linked  to  Policy       @KA_Nicholas  
  14. 14. Current  land  use  in  Sweden   Cropland   Map:  Åke  Nilsson,  MarkInfo,  Swedish  survey  of  Forest  Soils   Forest   @KA_Nicholas   14  
  15. 15. Cropland  changes  under  land  use  scenarios   Cropland  Area     (m  ha)     3.3   6.0   2.6   Cropland  %  of   total  area   8%   15%   6.5%   Current    2x  cereals              Intensifica1on   Frac1on  cropland  per  grid  cell   @KA_Nicholas   15  
  16. 16. Nitrogen  loss  under  land  use  scenarios      Current            2x  cereals                          Intensifica1on   kton  N/year  @KA_Nicholas   16  
  17. 17. Results:  Change  in  Ecosystem  Services     Aesthetics Aesthetics Aesthetics Current                            2x  cereals          Intensifica1on     *Preliminary   •  Either  doubling  or  intensifying  crop   produc1on  decreases  N  reten1on  by  ca.  40%   @KA_Nicholas   17   Today   2x    increase  
  18. 18. Op1mal  trade-­‐off  between  conflic1ng   ecosystem  services   Marginal  Cost   of  biodiversity  loss   Marginal  Benefit   of  food  produc/on   Economic   Value  ($)   Intensity  of  food  produc/on   (%  of  profit  maximizing  N  kg/ha)   0%   100%  (=  Today!)  Socially  op/mal   b a c   @KA_Nicholas   18  
  19. 19. 19   Financial  support  from:   •   Lund  University  Pufendorf  Advanced  Study  Group   •  Swedish  Research  Council  Project  Grant  2014-­‐5899,   “Agromes:  Mapping  the  environmental,  economic,  and  social   tradeoffs  of  European  farming  systems  across  scales.”   Thank  you!     Photo:  Marcel  Kerkhof,  Flickr   #StandUpForScience-­‐  rally  today  at  12:00,  Jessie  Square   @KA_Nicholas  

×