How to make land use policy decisions: Integrating science and economics to deliver connected climate, biodiversity, and food objectives

作者：Ian J. Bateman, Amy Binner, Ethan T. Addicott, Ben Balmford, Frankie Cho, Gretchen C. Daily, Anthony J. De-Gol, Sabrina Eisenbarth, Michela Faccioli, Henry Ferguson‐Gow, Silvia Ferrini, Carlo Fezzi, Kate Gannon, Ben Groom, Anna Harper, Amii R. Harwood, Jon Hillier, Mark F. Hulme, Christopher F. Lee, Lorena Liuzzo, Andrew Lovett, Mattia Mancini, Robert Matthews, James Morison, Nathan Owen, Richard G. Pearson, Stephen Polasky, G. Siriwardena, Pete Smith, P. Snowdon, Peter Tippett, Sylvia H. Vetter, Shailaja Vinjili, Christian A. Vossler, Robert T. Watson, Daniel Williamson, Brett Day · 发表于：Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 年份：2024 · DOI：10.1073/pnas.2407961121 · 被引用次数：16 · 研究领域：Economic and Environmental Valuation、Forest Management and Policy、Climate Change Policy and Economics

Land use change is crucial to addressing the existential threats of climate change and biodiversity loss while enhancing food security [M. Zurek et al. , Science 376 , 1416–1421 (2022)]. The interconnected and spatially varying nature of the impacts of land use change means that these challenges must be addressed simultaneously [H.-O. Pörtner et al. , Science 380 , eabl4881 (2023)]. However, governments commonly focus on single issues, incentivizing land use change via “Flat-Rate” subsidies offering constant per hectare payments, uptake of which is determined by the economic circumstances of landowners rather than the integrated environmental outcomes that will be delivered [G. Q. Bull et al. , Forest Policy Econ. 9 , 13–31 (2006)]. Here, we compare Flat-Rate subsidies to two alternatives: “Land Use Scenario” allocation of subsidies through consultation across stakeholders and interested parties; and a “Natural Capital” approach which targets subsidies according to expected ecosystem service response. This comparison is achieved by developing a comprehensive decision support system, integrating new and existing natural, physical, and economic science models to quantify environmental, agricultural, and economic outcomes. Applying this system to the United Kingdom’s net zero commitment to increase carbon storage via afforestation, we show that the three approaches result in significantly different outcomes in terms of where planting occurs, their environmental consequences, and...