Soil erosion vulnerability under scenarios of climate land-use changes after the development of a large reservoir in a semi-arid area

Ferreira, Vera; Arvela, André Filipe Samora; Panagopoulos, Τhomas

doi:10.1080/09640568.2015.1066667

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Active mitigation in a changing climate (either in terms of lessening climate change or lessening the impacts of climate change) is rarely treated, even where models focus on relevant processes such as reforestation or the adoption of bioenergy crops (e.g., Refs ). Instead, mitigation is represented as an economic process driven by taxes or subsidies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 53,59,63,66,71,74,79,80 . In some cases, economically‐driven mitigation is balanced against climatically driven adaptation 68,74,79 .…”

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modeled responses are often notably cross‐sectoral, however. In several cases, changes are permitted between arable and pastoral agriculture, between agriculture and other land uses (often forestry), or between use and abandonment of land 37,39,53,63,68,69,71,74,75,79,85,90,95 . Broader still are options for adaptation through general resource usage, 36,56,82 adoption of technology, 82 mitigation of poverty, 88 engagement with social or institutional responses, 56 or migration 47,52,56,70 .…”

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is regularly acknowledged in modeling papers, but is also used to excuse a subsequent neglect of institutional actors and effects. In some cases, it is explicitly argued that scenarios of institutional interventions are more transparent and appropriate than attempts to model institutional behavior (e.g., Ref ), and this certainly seems a logical minimum requirement for models intended to evaluate policy options 49,53,59,63,66–68,79,99 …”

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social and behavioral factors of the kinds discussed above have generally acknowledged importance in climate change adaptation and mitigation, and this is reflected by the inclusion of at least one of these factors in the majority of relevant models. However, while these factors often inform the decisions made by model agents, their exact roles and importance varies widely and often without detailed justification, except where determined by data availability (e.g., Refs , , and ). Furthermore, despite the explicitly behavioral focus of models included in this review, the majority assume some form of economic rationality as the basis for land management decisions.…”

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Behavioral models of climate change adaptation and mitigation in land‐based sectors

Brown

Alexander

Holzhauer

et al. 2017

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of the land system are essential to our understanding of the magnitude and impacts of climate change. These models are required to represent a large number of processes in different sectors, but face particular challenges in describing the individual and social behaviors that underpin climate change mitigation and adaptation. We assess descriptions of these behaviors in existing models, their commonalities and differences, and the uses to which they have been put. We find that behavioral models have a distinct and important role to play in climate research, but that they currently suffer from being strongly sectoral in nature, with agricultural models being the most common and behaviorally rich. There are also clear convergences, with economic‐based decision‐making remaining dominant and behaviors such as diffusion, interaction, anticipation, or learning remaining relatively neglected. Active climate change is also rarely modeled, with adaptation and mitigation generally represented as responses to economic drivers under static climatic conditions. Furthermore, dynamic behaviors, objectives, or decision‐making processes are almost entirely absent, despite their clear relevance to climate change responses. We conclude that models have been more successful in the identification of important processes than in their implementation and that, while some behavioral processes may remain impossible to model, behavioral models of adaptation and mitigation in land‐based sectors have substantial unexplored potential. We suggest that greater attention be paid to the cumulative coverage of models in this field, and that improvements in the representation of certain key behaviors be prioritized. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e448. doi: 10.1002/wcc.448 This article is categorized under: Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Representing Uncertainty

show abstract

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Behavioral models of climate change adaptation and mitigation in land‐based sectors

Brown

Alexander

Holzhauer

et al. 2017

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perubahan penggunaan lahan merupakan salah satu faktor yang dapat menyebabkan suatu DAS mengalami kerusakan lingkungan (Ferreira, Samora-Arvela, & Panagopoulos, 2016;Metzger, Rounsevell, Acosta-Michlik, Leemans, & Schröter, 2006), sedangkan faktor manusia dapat menentukan apakah perubahan tersebut ke arah merusak atau lestari. Perubahan penggunaan lahan yang paling sering menyebabkan kerusakan lingkungan adalah berubahnya lahan hutan menjadi pertanian atau permukiman.…”

unclassified

Reklasifikasi Peta Penutupan Lahan untuk Meningkatkan Akurasi Kerentanan Lahan

Savitri

Pramono

2017

JWL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land vulnerability is an important information to formulate land rehabilitation activities since it indicates the response of that particular land to erosion. It was determined by several factors such as slope, soil types, rainfall, and land cover. The land cover could be managed to maintain the land vulnerability. Inaccuracies of land cover classification would produce different vulnerabilities, which can cause miscalculation in land rehabilitation planning and implementation. This research is to adjust the existing land cover classification in order to detect land vulnerabilities. The analysis is done by comparing the classification of the existing land cover map with land cover criteria for land vulnerability analysis. The classification result then overlayed with land system map to determine the land vulnerability. The result of a study in Cisadane watershed shows that inaccuracy in determining unirrigated farming into shrub land or moor/open field could affect the shifting of vulnerable class to very vulnerable. Differences in determining plantations and unplanted estate areas with open field could also raise the extent of land vulnerability to 12.3%. Settlement in an urban area that turned into buildings would reduce the level of land vulnerability to 2.1%. Buildings could reduce the land vulnerability due to the impermeable layer would decrease erosion. However, from the hydrological point of view, the impermeable layers would increase the hydrological vulnerability due to the increased runoff and reduced ability to absorb water. Land cover data selection as input to determine the land vulnerability is very important and sensitive. For that reason, in the Cisadane Watershed, dryland farming should be classified as open field and settlement in urban areas should classify as buildings.

show abstract

Future soil loss in highland Ethiopia under changing climate and land use

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil erosion caused by climate and land-use changes is one of the biggest environmental challenges in highland Ethiopia. The aim of this study was to assess the future soil erosion risks and evaluate the potential conservation measures in the Rib watershed, northwestern highland Ethiopia. We used the HadGEM2-ES model with a moderate greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration scenario (RCP4.5) to project the future climate. The future land-use patterns were predicted using the CA-Markov model. We integrated the RUSLE model with GIS to estimate the spatial distribution of soil loss and identify erosion risk areas. We found that the Rib watershed is highly vulnerable to future climate and land-use changes, leading to a high soil erosion risk. Despite slight growth of forest cover during the study period, the total soil loss for the watershed was estimated to be 7.93 × 10 6 t year −1 in 2017 and was predicted to increase to 9.75 × 10 6 t year −1 in 2050, an increase of about 23%. The increase in forest cover was due to the expansion of the area of eucalyptus plantations which are more prone to erosion. Moreover, field survey showed that the residual native forests are sparsely vegetated and mostly used for cattle grazing, increasing the erosion risk even more. In contrast, the combined use of afforestation with native trees and physical soil conservation measures in the upper areas of the catchment could decrease soil loss by 62%. Our results stress the importance of combining soil conservation measures, including converting eucalyptus plantations to native forests, to mitigate the effects of future climate change and increased agricultural production on soil erosion.

show abstract

Soil erosion vulnerability under scenarios of climate land-use changes after the development of a large reservoir in a semi-arid area

Cited by 21 publications

References 57 publications

Behavioral models of climate change adaptation and mitigation in land‐based sectors

Behavioral models of climate change adaptation and mitigation in land‐based sectors

Reklasifikasi Peta Penutupan Lahan untuk Meningkatkan Akurasi Kerentanan Lahan

Future soil loss in highland Ethiopia under changing climate and land use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About