Land use efficiency: anticipating future demand for land‐sector greenhouse gas emissions abatement and managing trade‐offs with agriculture,water, and biodiversity |
| |
| Authors: | Brett A. Bryan Neville D. Crossman Martin Nolan Jing Li Javier Navarro Jeffery D. Connor |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. CSIRO, Urrbrae, SA, Australia;2. College of Tourism and Environment, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China;3. CSIRO, EcoSciences Precinct, Qld, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Competition for land is increasing, and policy needs to ensure the efficient supply of multiple ecosystem services from land systems. We modelled the spatially explicit potential future supply of ecosystem services in Australia's intensive agricultural land in response to carbon markets under four global outlooks from 2013 to 2050. We assessed the productive efficiency of greenhouse gas emissions abatement, agricultural production, water resources, and biodiversity services and compared these to production possibility frontiers (PPFs). While interacting commodity markets and carbon markets produced efficient outcomes for agricultural production and emissions abatement, more efficient outcomes were possible for water resources and biodiversity services due to weak price signals. However, when only two objectives were considered as per typical efficiency assessments, efficiency improvements involved significant unintended trade‐offs for the other objectives and incurred substantial opportunity costs. Considering multiple objectives simultaneously enabled the identification of land use arrangements that were efficient over multiple ecosystem services. Efficient land use arrangements could be selected that meet society's preferences for ecosystem service provision from land by adjusting the metric used to combine multiple services. To effectively manage competition for land via land use efficiency, market incentives are needed that effectively price multiple ecosystem services. |
| |
| Keywords: | carbon sequestration climate change ecosystem services food security land use change scenarios trade‐offs water resources |
|
|
