The effect of forest owner decision-making, climatic change and societal demands on land-use change and ecosystem service provision in Sweden

Blanco, Víctor; Holzhauer, Sascha; Brown, Calum; Lagergren, Fredrik; Vulturius, Gregor; Lindeskog, Mats; Rounsevell, Mark

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.003

Cited by 35 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of these aspects could be further enhanced through agent-based modelling (Brown et al 2017;Holzhauer et al 2018, this issue), which can represent more diverse decision-making processes (e.g. Acosta-Michlik et al 2014;Blanco et al 2017;Murray-Rust et al 2013). However, whilst the spatial patterns of land use might change, the biophysical limits will not and as such the key messages resulting from the IAP2 simulations with respect to winners and losers, the most and least productive areas, and the cross-sectoral challenges of balancing demands across sectors remain of great significance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Paris Agreement established the 1.5 and 2°C targets based on the recognition Bthat this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change^. We tested this assertion by comparing impacts at the regional scale between low-end (< 2°C; RCP2.6) and high-end (> 4°C; RCP8.5) climate change scenarios accounting for interactions across six sectors (agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, water, coasts and urban) using an integrated assessment model. Results show that there are only minor differences in most impact indicators for the 2020s time slice, but impacts are considerably greater under high-end than low-end climate change in the 2050s and 2080s. For example, for the 2080s, mitigation consistent with the Paris Agreement would reduce aggregate Europe-wide impacts on the area of intensive agriculture by 21% (on average across climate models), on the area of managed forests by 34%, on water stress by 14%, on people flooded by 10% and on biodiversity vulnerability by 16%. Including socioeconomic scenarios (SSPs 1, 3, 4, 5) results in considerably greater variation in the magnitude, range and direction of change of the majority of impact indicators than climate change alone. In particular, socioeconomic factors much more strongly drive changes in land use and food production than changes in climate, sometimes overriding the differences due to low-end and high-end climate change. Such impacts pose significant challenges for adaptation and highlight the importance of searching for synergies between adaptation and mitigation and linking them to sustainable development goals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used the CRAFTY-Sweden model (Blanco et al, 2017; ODD protocol in Appendix A) to explore adaptation to global change in the Swedish forestry sector. CRAFTY-Sweden is an applied extension of the CRAFTY ABM framework (Murray-Rust et al, 2014; code and documentation available via https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/CRAFTY/Home) that represents large-scale land-use dynamics based on the demand and supply of ecosystem services (Fig.1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Agents include different types of forest owners and farmers characterised by their objectives and associated management practices (Blanco et al, 2017), with farmer agents included in order to simulate the competition for land between forestry and agriculture. Geographical space is represented as a grid of cells across the whole of Sweden at a resolution of 1km 2 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Geographical space is represented as a grid of cells across the whole of Sweden at a resolution of 1km 2 . Each cell has defined levels for a range of capitals representing the availability of infrastructure and land productivity (which depend upon socio-economic and climatic scenarios as defined below and, more fully, in Blanco et al 2017). A cell is managed by a single agent, which uses the capital stock available within the cell to provide services according to a production function (see Section 2.2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The importance of socio-ecological system dynamics in understanding adaptation to global change in the forestry sector

Blanco

Brown

Holzhauer

et al. 2017

Journal of Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptation is necessary to cope with or take advantage of the effects of climate change on socio-ecological systems. This is especially important in the forestry sector, which is sensitive to the ecological and economic impacts of climate change, and where the adaptive decisions of owners play out over long periods of time. Relatively little is known about how successful these decisions are likely to be in meeting demands for ecosystem services in an uncertain future. We explore adaptation to global change in the forestry sector using CRAFTY-Sweden; an agent-based model that represents large-scale land-use dynamics, based on the demand and supply of ecosystem services. Future impacts and adaptation within the Swedish forestry sector were simulated for scenarios of socio-economic change (Shared Socio-economic Pathways) and climatic change (Representative Concentration Pathways, for three climate models), between 2010 and 2100. Substantial differences were found in the competitiveness and coping ability of land owners implementing different management strategies through time. Generally, multi-objective management was found to provide the best basis for adaptation. Across large regions, however, a combination of management strategies was better at meeting ecosystem service demands. Results also show that adaptive capacity evolves through time in response to external (global) drivers and interactions between individual actors. This suggests that process-based models are more appropriate for the study of autonomous adaptation and future adaptive and coping capacities than models based on indicators, discrete time snapshots or exogenous proxies. Nevertheless, a combination of planned and autonomous adaptation by institutions and forest owners is likely to be more successful than either group acting alone.

show abstract

“…This can explain that climate change and rapid urbanization are the main factors affecting the level of ecosystem services. For example, Blanco [35] used an agent-based land use model to study the socio-economic changes in Sweden between 2010 and 2100 and the impact of climate change on ecosystem services. The results of the study show that the social behavior of landowners has a more significant impact on land use change than climate change.…”

Section: High-frequency Keyword Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A Scientometrics Review on Land Ecosystem Service Research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans can derive the benefits from the ecosystem to satisfy human needs as well-being. Therefore, good ecosystem management is the intermediary between ecosystems and human well-being. The ecosystem services depend on the supply of nature, and also reflect the value orientation of human beings, as the basis for the realization of human survival and cultural development. Land ecosystem services are the core and hot topic of ecological research. Under the current severe depletion of land use, this research evaluates the sustainable governance on the natural resource shortage, serious environmental pollution and ecosystem degradation. Based on the Web of Science database, this paper analyzes the development characteristics and trends of global land ecosystem services research using the Bibliometrix software package. The results show that (1) the amount of literature on land ecosystem services research between 2000 and 2019 has generally increased significantly, and entered a stage of rapid development from 2015. (2) Developed countries are the main research force in the field of land ecosystem services, and the United States has the absolute leading position. Developing countries are dominated by China, Argentina, and Brazil. (3)The high-frequency keywords for land ecosystem services are land use change, land use, climate change, urbanization, carbon and water quality. This can be regarded as a research hotspot in the field of land ecosystem services to a certain extent. (4) Through cluster analysis on the big data, the research found the direction for the future land ecosystem services, mainly: (I) the restoration of degraded land and its impact on ecosystem services; (II) the environmental impact assessment of land use planning based on the ecosystem services value; (III) the tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services in sustainable land management; (IV) the impact of land cover change on ecosystem services; (V) through the historical analysis of citied papers, the research history and evolution path of land ecosystem services are explored. Based on all these arguments, a comprehensive study on the diverse facets of land ecosystem services and the practical application of land ecosystem services areas is proposed.

show abstract

The effect of forest owner decision-making, climatic change and societal demands on land-use change and ecosystem service provision in Sweden

Cited by 35 publications

References 60 publications

Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors

Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors

The importance of socio-ecological system dynamics in understanding adaptation to global change in the forestry sector

A Scientometrics Review on Land Ecosystem Service Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About