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

Land use change is crucial to addressing the existential threats of climate change and biodiversity loss while enhancing food security [M. Zurek <i>et al.</i>, <i>Science</i> <b>376</b>, 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 <i>et al.</i>, <i>Science</i> <b>380</b>, 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 <i>et al.</i>, <i>Forest Policy Econ.</i> <b>9</b>, 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 economic costs and benefits. The Flat-Rate approach actually increases net carbon emissions while Land Use Scenario allocation yields poor economic outcomes. The Natural Capital targeted approach outperforms both alternatives, providing the highest possible social values while satisfying net zero commitments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2024-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2407961121
Citations
14
Primary Topic
Economic and Environmental Valuation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
15.81

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

P. Snowdon, Ben Groom, Brett Day, Gretchen C. Daily et al.
14 citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Economic and Environmental Valuation
15.81
article

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

P. Snowdon, Ben Groom, Brett Day, Gretchen C. Daily, Lorena Liuzzo, Christian A. Vossler, Christopher F. Lee, Shailaja Vinjili, Daniel Williamson, Sylvia H. Vetter, Anthony J. De-Gol, G. Siriwardena, Anna Harper, Frankie Cho, Andrew Lovett, Pete Smith, Carlo Fezzi, Mark F. Hulme, Sabrina Eisenbarth, Ben Balmford, Michela Faccioli, Nathan Owen, Mattia Mancini, Kate Gannon, Ethan T. Addicott, Stephen Polasky, Jon Hillier, Amii R. Harwood, Richard G. Pearson, Henry Ferguson‐Gow, Amy Binner, James Morison, Ian J. Bateman, Silvia Ferrini, Robert Matthews, Robert T. Watson, Peter Tippett
article en
14 citations

Abstract

Land use change is crucial to addressing the existential threats of climate change and biodiversity loss while enhancing food security [M. Zurek <i>et al.</i>, <i>Science</i> <b>376</b>, 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 <i>et al.</i>, <i>Science</i> <b>380</b>, 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 <i>et al.</i>, <i>Forest Policy Econ.</i> <b>9</b>, 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 economic costs and benefits. The Flat-Rate approach actually increases net carbon emissions while Land Use Scenario allocation yields poor economic outcomes. The Natural Capital targeted approach outperforms both alternatives, providing the highest possible social values while satisfying net zero commitments.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 121(49)
University of East Anglia (GB), University of Minnesota (US), Roslin Institute (GB), University of Georgia (US), University of Trento (IT), University of Aberdeen (GB), University of St.Gallen (CH), University of Exeter (GB), Forest Research (GB), University College London (GB), University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US), British Trust for Ornithology (GB), London School of Economics and Political Science (GB), Stanford University (US)
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government, Sight Research UK, Arts and Humanities Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Economic and Environmental Valuation
15.81
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.