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

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

LSE Research Online Documents on Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library

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.

Keywords: biodiversity; climate change; decision-making; land use; natural capital (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: J01 R14 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 8 pages
Date: 2024-12-03
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-agr and nep-env
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 3, December, 2024, 121(49). ISSN: 0027-8424

Downloads: (external link)
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/126171/ Open access version. (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: How to make land use policy decisions: Integrating science and economics to deliver connected climate, biodiversity, and food objectives (2024)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ehl:lserod:126171

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in LSE Research Online Documents on Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library LSE Library Portugal Street London, WC2A 2HD, U.K.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by LSERO Manager ().