GLOBIO3: A Framework to Investigate Options for Reducing Global Terrestrial Biodiversity Loss

Abstract

The GLOBIO3 model has been developed to assess human-induced changes in biodiversity, in the past, present, and future at regional and global scales. The model is built on simple cause-effect relationships between environmental drivers and biodiversity impacts, based on state-of-the-art knowledge. The mean abundance of original species relative to their abundance in undisturbed ecosystems (MSA) is used as the indicator for biodiversity. Changes in drivers are derived from the IMAGE 2.4 model. Drivers considered are landcover change, land-use intensity, fragmentation, climate change, atmospheric nitrogen deposition, and infrastructure development. GLOBIO3 addresses (i) the impacts of environmental drivers on MSA and their relative importance; (ii) expected trends under various future scenarios; and (iii) the likely effects of various policy response options. GLOBIO3 has been used successfully in several integrated regional and global assessments. Three different global-scale policy options have been evaluated on their potential to reduce MSA loss. These options are: climate-change mitigation through expanded use of bio-energy, an increase in plantation forestry, and an increase in protected areas. We conclude that MSA loss is likely to continue during the coming decades. Plantation forestry may help to reduce the rate of loss, whereas climate-change mitigation through the extensive use of bioenergy crops will, in fact, increase this rate of loss. The protection of 20% of all large ecosystems leads to a small reduction in the rate of loss, provided that protection is effective and that currently degraded protected areas are restored.

Effects of different management regimes on mangrove ecosystem services in Java, Indonesia

“…Generally speaking, mangrove areas can be divided into natural mangrove forests, replanted areas with the aim to produce wood and NTFP, aquaculture ponds (some with mangroves), and abandoned aquaculture ponds. This distinction of ecosystems into natural, intensively used, converted (aquaculture) and abandoned is becoming increasingly popular in scientific literature (Foley et al 2005, Alkemade et al 2009, De Groot et al 2010b, Verburg et al 2013), but comprehensive typologies have not been developed yet. To better reflect the reality of mangrove ecosystems as being highly influenced by human activities, we first developed five broad categories of management regimes (based on Gilbert and Janssen 1998, Macintosh et al 2002, Saenger 2002, Walters et al 2008.…”

Motives and values in farming local cattle breeds in Europe: a survey on 15 breeds

“…Key contributors to the development of agrobiodiversity indicators include the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (OECD, 1999a(OECD, , 1999b(OECD, , 2001(OECD, , 2008; the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity of the European Environment Agency (EEA) (EEA, 2005(EEA, , 2007(EEA, , 2009a(EEA, , 2009b; the European Regional Focal Point for Animal Genetic Resources (Charvolin, 2007(Charvolin, , 2008; and the United Nations Environment Programme's World Conservation Monitoring Centre (Bubb, Jenkins and Kapos, 2005). There have also been project-based initiatives such as Global Methodology for Mapping Human Impacts on the Biosphere (GLOBIO) (Alkemade et al, 2009;www.globio.info), and research undertaken by the scientific community. et al, 2009a, 2009b).…”

Impacts of agricultural land-use changes on biodiversity in Taihu Lake Basin, China: a multi-scale cause–effect approach considering multiple land-use functions

“…Scholes and Biggs 2005;Reidsma et al 2006;Weijters et al 2009), due to the difficulty of observation and up-scaling from small-scale experiments to higher scales and budget limitation (Fu et al 2007). Alkemade et al (2009) have developed the GLOBIO3 model to assess human-induced changes in biodiversity at the global scale. The model is built on simple causeeffect relationships between environmental drivers and biodiversity impacts, based on available literature using meta-analysis.…”

“…The maximum value of MSA is 100% and indicates an undisturbed natural situation, while 0% represents a completely transformed/destroyed ecosystem without any wild species left. Based on the Global Land Cover 2000 (GLC2000) map (Bartholome et al 2004;Alkemade et al 2009), land-use categories are defined and given corresponding MSA values ranging from 5% to 100%. Besides MSA values for each defined land-use type (LUT), Alkemade et al (2009) identified the following environmental drivers: land-cover change, land-use intensity, fragmentation, climate change, atmospheric nitrogen deposition and infrastructure development.…”

“…Based on the Global Land Cover 2000 (GLC2000) map (Bartholome et al 2004;Alkemade et al 2009), land-use categories are defined and given corresponding MSA values ranging from 5% to 100%. Besides MSA values for each defined land-use type (LUT), Alkemade et al (2009) identified the following environmental drivers: land-cover change, land-use intensity, fragmentation, climate change, atmospheric nitrogen deposition and infrastructure development. Considering the impacts of these drivers on biodiversity (MSA) and aggregating different LUTs to the regional scale, the evaluated value of MSA in Jiangsu Province (half of the total area of Taihu Lake Basin is accounted for by Jiangsu) for the year 2000 was 21%.…”