3.3. Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Scenarios
3.3.1. Purpose
The land cover of the Earth has a central role in many important biophysical
and socioeconomic processes of global environmental change. Contemporary land
cover is changed mostly by human use; therefore, understanding of land-use change
is essential in understanding land-cover change (Turner et al., 1995).
Land use is defined through its purpose and is characterized by management practices
such as logging, ranching, and cropping. Land cover is the actual manifestation
of land use (i.e., forest, grassland, cropland) (IPCC, 2000). Land-use change
and land-cover change (LUC-LCC) involve several processes that are central to
the estimation of climate change and its impacts (Turner et al., 1995).
First, LUC-LCC influences carbon fluxes and GHG emissions (Houghton, 1995; Braswell
et al., 1997). This directly alters atmospheric composition and radiative
forcing properties. Second, LUC-LCC changes land-surface characteristics and,
indirectly, climatic processes (Bonan, 1997; Claussen, 1997). Third, LUC-LCC
is an important factor in determining the vulnerability of ecosystems and landscapes
to environmental change (Peters and Lovejoy, 1992). LCC, for examplethrough
nitrogen addition, drainage and irrigation, and deforestation (Skole and Tucker,
1993; Vitousek et al., 1997)may alter the properties and possible
responses of ecosystems. Finally, several options and strategies for mitigating
GHG emissions involve land cover and changed land-use practices (IPCC, 1996b).
The central role of LUC-LCC highlights the importance of its inclusion in scenario
development for assessing global change impacts. To date this has not been done
satisfactorily in most assessments (Leemans et al., 1996a). For instance,
in earlier emission scenarios (e.g., Leggett et al., 1992), constant
emission factors were applied to define land use-related methane (CH4)
and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Furthermore, linear extrapolations
of observed deforestation rates were assumed, along with an averaged carbon
content in deforested areas. The SRES scenarios (Nakicenovic et al.,
2000) have improved on the underlying LUC-LCC assumptions, considerably enhancing
scenario consistency. Unfortunately, these SRES scenarios provide highly aggregate
regional LUC-LCC information, which is difficult to use in impact assessments.
A comprehensive treatment of the other roles of LUC-LCC in the climate system
is still deficient. To highlight these shortcomings, this section reviews studies
and approaches in which LUC-LCC information is applied to develop scenarios
for both impact and mitigation assessment.
3.3.2. Methods of Scenario Development
3.3.2.1. Baseline Data
The SAR evaluated land-use and land-cover data sets and concluded that they
often were of dubious quality (Leemans et al., 1996a). Since the SAR,
many statistical data sources have been upgraded and their internal consistency
improved (e.g., FAO, 1999), although large regional differences in quality and
coverage remain. In addition, the high-resolution global database, DISCover,
has become available (Loveland and Belward, 1997). This database is derived
from satellite data and consists of useful land-cover classes. Furthermore,
attempts also have been made to develop historical land-use and land-cover databases
(Ramankutty and Foley, 1999; Klein Goldewijk, 2001). These databases use proxy
sourcessuch as historic maps, population-density estimates, and infrastructureto
approximate land-cover patterns. All of these improvements to the information
base are important for initializing and validating the models used in scenario
development for global change assessments.
3.3.2.2. Regional and Sector-Specific Approaches
A large variety of LUC-LCC scenarios have been constructed. Many of them focus
on local and regional issues; only a few are global in scope. Most LUC-LCC scenarios,
however, are developed not to assess GHG emissions, carbon fluxes, and climate
change and impacts but to evaluate the environmental consequences of different
agrosystems (e.g., Koruba et al., 1996), agricultural policies (e.g.,
Moxey et al., 1995), and food security (e.g., Penning de Vries et
al., 1997) or to project future agricultural production, trade, and food
availability (e.g., Alexandratos, 1995; Rosegrant et al., 1995). Moreover,
changes in land-cover patterns are poorly defined in these studies. At best
they specify aggregated amounts of arable land and pastures.
One of the more comprehensive attempts to define the consequences of agricultural
policies on landscapes was the "Ground for Choices" study (Van Latesteijn,
1995). This study aimed to evaluate the consequences of increasing agricultural
productivity and the Common Agricultural Policy in Europe and analyzed the possibilities
for sustainable management of resources. It concluded that the total amount
of agricultural land and employment would continue to declinethe direction
of this trend apparently little influenced by agricultural policy. Many different
possibilities for improving agricultural production were identified, leaving
room for development of effective measures to preserve biodiversity, for example.
This study included many of the desired physical, ecological, socioeconomic,
and regional characteristics required for comprehensive LUC-LCC scenario development
but did not consider environmental change.
Different LUC-LCC scenario studies apply very different methods. Most of them
are based on scenarios from regression or process-based models. In the global
agricultural land-use study of Alexandratos (1995), such models are combined
with expert judgment, whereby regional and disciplinary experts reviewed all
model-based scenarios. If these scenarios were deemed inconsistent with known
trends or likely developments, they were modified until a satisfactory solution
emerged for all regions. This approach led to a single consensus scenario of
likely agricultural trends to 2010. Such a short time horizon is appropriate
for expert panels; available evidence suggests that expert reviews of longer
term scenarios tend to be conservative, underestimating emerging developments
(Rabbinge and van Oijen, 1997).
|