Key determinants of global land-use projections

Land use is at the core of various sustainable development goals. Long-term climate foresight studies have structured their recent analyses around five socio-economic pathways (SSPs), with consistent storylines of future macroeconomic and societal developments; however, model quantification of these scenarios shows substantial heterogeneity in land-use projections. Here we build on a recently developed sensitivity approach to identify how future land use depends on six distinct socio-economic drivers (population, wealth, consumption preferences, agricultural productivity, land-use regulation, and trade) and their interactions. Spread across models arises mostly from diverging sensitivities to long-term drivers and from various representations of land-use regulation and trade, calling for reconciliation efforts and more empirical research. Most influential determinants for future cropland and pasture extent are population and agricultural efficiency. Furthermore, land-use regulation and consumption changes can play a key role in reducing both land use and food-security risks, and need to be central elements in sustainable development strategies.There lacks model comparison of global land use change projections. Here the authors explored how different long-term drivers determine land use and food availability projections and they showed that the key determinants population growth and improvements in agricultural efficiency.

[1]  Jean Chateau,et al.  Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[2]  Page Kyle,et al.  Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets , 2014, Climatic Change.

[3]  J. Eom,et al.  The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview , 2017 .

[4]  D. Vuuren,et al.  Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050: Explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model , 2015 .

[5]  Thomas W. Hertel,et al.  The Global Supply and Demand for Agricultural Land in 2050: A Perfect Storm in the Making? AAEA Presidential Address , 2010, GTAP Working Paper.

[6]  Tyler D. Eddy,et al.  Assessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming - simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b) , 2016 .

[7]  Steffen Fritz,et al.  Towards pathways bending the curve terrestrial biodiversity trends within the 21st century , 2018 .

[8]  P. Kyle,et al.  Land‐use change trajectories up to 2050: insights from a global agro‐economic model comparison , 2014 .

[9]  H. Schellnhuber,et al.  Will the world run out of land? A Kaya-type decomposition to study past trends of cropland expansion , 2014 .

[10]  B. Phalan What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model? , 2018, Sustainability.

[11]  Sherman Robinson,et al.  The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description for Version 3 , 2015 .

[12]  Benjamin Leon Bodirsky,et al.  Land-use protection for climate change mitigation , 2014 .

[13]  T. Hertel Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications , 1999 .

[14]  Pedro Pellegrini,et al.  Crop intensification, land use, and on-farm energy-use efficiency during the worldwide spread of the green revolution , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  B. Eickhout,et al.  The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe , 2006 .

[16]  Veronika Eyring,et al.  Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization , 2015 .

[17]  Paul S. Armington A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production (Une théorie de la demande de produits différenciés d'après leur origine) (Una teoría de la demanda de productos distinguiéndolos según el lugar de producción) , 1969 .

[18]  Christoph Schmitz,et al.  Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don't the models agree , 2014 .

[19]  Christoph Schmitz,et al.  Forecasting technological change in agriculture—An endogenous implementation in a global land use model , 2014 .

[20]  K. Calvin,et al.  Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century , 2017 .

[21]  J. Wolf,et al.  Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance—A review , 2013 .

[22]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[23]  Benjamin Leon Bodirsky,et al.  Livestock and human use of land: Productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics , 2017 .

[24]  Wolfgang Lutz,et al.  The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100 , 2017, Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions.

[25]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Hotspots of uncertainty in land‐use and land‐cover change projections: a global‐scale model comparison , 2016, Global change biology.

[26]  Siwa Msangi,et al.  Options to reduce the environmental effects of livestock production – Comparison of two economic models , 2013 .

[27]  Bas Eickhout,et al.  The effect of agricultural trade liberalisation on land-use related greenhouse gas emissions , 2009 .

[28]  Thomas W. Hertel,et al.  Global Trade Analysis , 1996 .

[29]  Tomoko Hasegawa,et al.  The future of food demand: understanding differences in global economic models , 2014 .

[30]  J. P. Powell,et al.  The MAGNET Model: Module description , 2014 .

[31]  C. Müller,et al.  Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance , 2007 .

[32]  Michael Obersteiner,et al.  Competition for land , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  W. Willett,et al.  Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits , 2018, Nature.

[34]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  A Methodology for Determining Interactions in Probabilistic Safety Assessment Models by Varying One Parameter at a Time , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[35]  Christoph Schmitz,et al.  Trading more food: Implications for land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the food system , 2012 .

[36]  Tomoko Hasegawa,et al.  Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5 °C climate goal , 2018, Environmental Research Letters.

[37]  E. Schmid,et al.  Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Benjamin Leon Bodirsky,et al.  Global Food Demand Scenarios for the 21st Century , 2015, PloS one.

[39]  C. Müller,et al.  Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. , 2008 .

[40]  D. Vuuren,et al.  Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0 : Model description and policy applications , 2014 .

[41]  P. Kyle,et al.  Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[42]  P. Kyle,et al.  Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways , 2017 .

[43]  James A. Edmonds,et al.  ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL MODELING OF LAND USE IN GCAM 3.0 AND AN APPLICATION TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY, LAND, AND TERRESTRIAL CARBON , 2014 .

[44]  Roberto O. Valdivia,et al.  Coordinating AgMIP data and models across global and regional scales for 1.5°C and 2.0°C assessments , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[45]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Large Ensemble Analytic Framework for Consequence‐Driven Discovery of Climate Change Scenarios , 2018 .

[46]  D. Tilman,et al.  Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health , 2014, Nature.

[47]  P. Kyle,et al.  Why do global long‐term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison , 2014 .

[48]  D. Tilman,et al.  Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice , 2017 .

[49]  J. Paruelo,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of a land zoning policy in the Dry Chaco. The Case of Santiago del Estero, Argentina , 2018 .

[50]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Sensitivity of projected long-term CO2 emissions across the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[51]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections , 2017, Global change biology.

[52]  K. Riahi,et al.  The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century , 2017 .

[53]  Tomoko Hasegawa,et al.  Land use representation in a global CGE model for long-term simulation: CET vs. logit functions , 2014, Food Security.

[54]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Sensitivity analysis with finite changes: An application to modified EOQ models , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[55]  Michael Obersteiner,et al.  Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for Land Use Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions , 2013 .

[56]  Walter Jetz,et al.  A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios , 2018, bioRxiv.

[57]  C. Rosenzweig,et al.  Climate Shifts within Major Agricultural Seasons for +1.5 and +2.0 °C Worlds: HAPPI Projections and AgMIP Modeling Scenarios. , 2018, Agricultural and forest meteorology.

[58]  S. Rolinski,et al.  Large-scale bioenergy production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs? , 2018 .

[59]  Tomoko Hasegawa,et al.  Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C , 2018, Nature Climate Change.