3.3.4. Application and Interpretation of Scenarios and their Uncertainties
LUC-LCC scenarios are all sensitive to underlying assumptions of future changes
in, for example, agricultural productivity and demand. This can lead to large
differences in scenario conclusions. For example, the FAO scenario (Alexandratos,
1995) demonstrates that land as a resource is not a limiting factor, whereas
the IMAGE scenarios (Alcamo et al., 1996) show that in Asia and Africa,
land rapidly becomes limited over the same time period. In the IMAGE scenarios,
relatively rapid transitions toward more affluent diets lead to rapid expansion
of (extensive) grazing systems. In contrast, the FAO study does not specify
the additional requirement for pastureland. The main difference in assumptions
is that animal productivity becomes increasingly dependent on cereals (FAO)
compared to pastures (IMAGE). This illustrates how varying important assumptions
may lead to discrepancies and inconsistencies between scenario conclusions.
In interpreting LUC-LCC scenarios, their scope, underlying assumptions, and
limitations should be carefully and critically evaluated before resulting land-cover
patterns are declared suitable for use in other studies. A better perspective
on how to interpret LUC-LCC both as a driving force and as a means for adaptation
to climate change is strongly required. One of the central questions is, "How
can we better manage land and land use to reduce vulnerability to climate change
and to meet our adaptation and mitigation needs?" Answering this question
requires further development of comprehensive LUC-LCC scenarios.
Table 3-2: Some illustrative estimates of reference
and future levels of atmospheric constituents that typically are applied
in model-based and experimental impact studies. Global values are presented,
where available. European values also are shown to illustrate regional variations
at the scale of many impact studies. |
|
Scenario
|
[CO2]a
(ppm )
|
[SO2]b
(mg m-3)
|
S-Depositionc
(meq m-2 a-1)
|
N-Depositionc
(meq m-2 a-1)
|
Ground-Level [O3]d
(ppb)
|
|
Reference/Control |
|
|
|
|
|
- Global/hemispheric
|
367
|
0.1-10
|
26
|
32
|
40
|
- Europe
|
|
5-100+
|
12-165 (572)
|
11-135 (288)
|
28-50 (72)
|
- Experiments
|
290-360
|
0-10
|
|
|
10-25
|
|
Future |
|
|
|
|
|
|
490-1350
|
50-1000
|
|
|
10-200
|
2010/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
- Global/hemispheric
|
388-395
|
|
26
|
36
|
|
- Europe
|
|
|
7-63 (225)
|
5-95 (163)
|
|
2050/2060 |
|
|
|
|
|
- Global/hemispheric
|
463-623
|
|
|
|
~60
|
- Europe
|
|
|
8-80 (280)
|
5-83 (205)
|
|
2100 |
|
|
|
|
|
- Global/hemispheric
|
478-1099
|
|
|
|
>70
|
- Europe
|
|
|
6-49 (276)
|
4-60 (161)
|
|
|
|