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

Bateman, Ian J., Binner, Amy, Addicott, Ethan T., Balmford, Ben, Cho, Frankie H.T., Daily, Gretchen C., De-Gol, Anthony, Eisenbarth, Sabrina, Faccioli, Michela, Ferguson-Gow, Henry, Ferrini, Silvia, Fezzi, Carlo, Gannon, Kate ORCID: 0000-0001-6742-8982, Groom, Ben ORCID: 0000-0003-0729-143X, Harper, Anna B., Harwood, Amii, Hillier, Jon, Hulme, Mark F., Lee, Christopher F., Liuzzo, Lorena, Lovett, Andrew, Mancini, Mattia C., Matthews, Robert, Morison, James I.L., Owen, Nathan, Pearson, Richard G., Polasky, Stephen, Siriwardena, Gavin, Smith, Pete, Snowdon, Pat Pat, Tippett, Peter, Vetter, Sylvia H., Vinjili, Shailaja, Vossler, Christian A., Watson, Robert T., Williamson, Daniel and Day, Brett H. (2024) How to make land use policy decisions: integrating science and economics to deliver connected climate, biodiversity, and food objectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121 (49). ISSN 0027-8424

Text (bateman-et-al-2024-how-to-make-land-use-policy-decisions-integrating-science-and-economics-to-deliver-connected-climate) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (2MB)

• Scopus publication

Abstract

Land use change is crucial to addressing the existential threats of climate change and biodiversity loss while enhancing food security [M. Zurek et al., Science376, 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., Science380, 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 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.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	© 2024 The Author(s)
Divisions:	Grantham Research Institute
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HD Industries. Land use. Labor G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences
Date Deposited:	26 Nov 2024 09:42
Last Modified:	20 Dec 2024 00:58
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/126171

Actions (login required)

View Item