Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item
    Challenges and opportunities in mapping land use intensity globally
    (Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2013) Kuemmerle, Tobias; Erb, Karlheinz; Meyfroidt, Patrick; Müller, Daniel; Verburg, Peter H.; Estel, Stephan; Haberl, Helmut; Hostert, Patrick; Jepsen, Martin R.; Kastner, Thomas; Levers, Christian; Lindner, Marcus; Plutzar, Christoph; Verkerk, Pieter Johannes; van der Zanden, Emma H.; Reenberg, Anette
    Future increases in land-based production will need to focus more on sustainably intensifying existing production systems. Unfortunately, our understanding of the global patterns of land use intensity is weak, partly because land use intensity is a complex, multidimensional term, and partly because we lack appropriate datasets to assess land use intensity across broad geographic extents. Here, we review the state of the art regarding approaches for mapping land use intensity and provide a comprehensive overview of available global-scale datasets on land use intensity. We also outline major challenges and opportunities for mapping land use intensity for cropland, grazing, and forestry systems, and identify key issues for future research.
  • Item
    A conceptual framework for analysing and measuring land-use intensity
    (Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2013) Erb, Karl-Heinz; Haberl, Helmut; Jepsen, Martin Rudbeck; Kuemmerle, Tobias; Lindner, Marcus; Müller, Daniel; Verburg, Peter H.; Reenberg, Anette
    Large knowledge gaps currently exist that limit our ability to understand and characterise dynamics and patterns of land-use intensity: in particular, a comprehensive conceptual framework and a system of measurement are lacking. This situation hampers the development of a sound understanding of the mechanisms, determinants, and constraints underlying changes in land-use intensity. On the basis of a review of approaches for studying land-use intensity, we propose a conceptual framework to quantify and analyse land-use intensity. This framework integrates three dimensions: (a) input intensity, (b) output intensity, and (c) the associated system-level impacts of land- based production (e.g. changes in carbon storage or biodiversity). The systematic development of indicators across these dimensions would provide opportunities for the systematic analyses of the trade-offs, synergies and opportunity costs of land-use intensification strategies.
  • Item
    Global bioenergy potentials from agricultural land in 2050: Sensitivity to climate change, diets and yields
    (Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2011) Haberl, Helmut; Erb, Karl-Heinz; Krausmann, Fridolin; Bondeau, Alberte; Lauk, Christian; Müller, Christoph; Plutzar, Christoph; Steinberger, Julia K.
    There is a growing recognition that the interrelations between agriculture, food, bioenergy, and climate change have to be better understood in order to derive more realistic estimates of future bioenergy potentials. This article estimates global bioenergy potentials in the year 2050, following a “food first” approach. It presents integrated food, livestock, agriculture, and bioenergy scenarios for the year 2050 based on a consistent representation of FAO projections of future agricultural development in a global biomass balance model. The model discerns 11 regions, 10 crop aggregates, 2 livestock aggregates, and 10 food aggregates. It incorporates detailed accounts of land use, global net primary production (NPP) and its human appropriation as well as socioeconomic biomass flow balances for the year 2000 that are modified according to a set of scenario assumptions to derive the biomass potential for 2050. We calculate the amount of biomass required to feed humans and livestock, considering losses between biomass supply and provision of final products. Based on this biomass balance as well as on global land-use data, we evaluate the potential to grow bioenergy crops and estimate the residue potentials from cropland (forestry is outside the scope of this study). We assess the sensitivity of the biomass potential to assumptions on diets, agricultural yields, cropland expansion and climate change. We use the dynamic global vegetation model LPJmL to evaluate possible impacts of changes in temperature, precipitation, and elevated CO2 on agricultural yields. We find that the gross (primary) bioenergy potential ranges from 64 to 161 EJ y−1, depending on climate impact, yields and diet, while the dependency on cropland expansion is weak. We conclude that food requirements for a growing world population, in particular feed required for livestock, strongly influence bioenergy potentials, and that integrated approaches are needed to optimize food and bioenergy supply.
  • Item
    Bioenergy production and sustainable development: Science base for policymaking remains limited
    (Milton Park : Taylor & Francis, 2016) Robledo‐Abad, Carmenza; Althaus, Hans‐Jörg; Berndes, Göran; Bolwig, Simon; Corbera, Esteve; Creutzig, Felix; Garcia‐Ulloa, John; Geddes, Anna; Gregg, Jay S.; Haberl, Helmut; Hanger, Susanne; Harper, Richard J.; Hunsberger, Carol; Larsen, Rasmus K.; Lauk, Christian; Leitner, Stefan; Lilliestam, Johan; Lotze‐Campen, Hermann; Muys, Bart; Nordborg, Maria; Ölund, Maria; Orlowsky, Boris; Popp, Alexander; Portugal‐Pereira, Joana; Reinhard, Jürgen; Scheiffle, Lena; Smith, Pete
    The possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well‐studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories – environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production.