Potential of woody biomass production for motivating widespread natural resource management under climate change

Bryan, Brett A.; King, Darran; Wang, Enli

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.012

Cited by 42 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, economic opportunities are the primary driver of land use change for individual landholders (Bryan et al, 2008(Bryan et al, , 2010Lambin et al, 2001;Odeh et al, 2011;Seabrook et al, 2006;van der Hilst et al, 2010van der Hilst et al, , 2012a. However, land use change scenarios for this spatially explicit evaluation were developed using biophysical (i.e., environmental, agronomical, climatic, topographical) land suitability for the bioenergy crops investigated because there was no clear national/regional bioenergy/biofuel policy or plan to base land use change scenarios on.…”

Section: Land Use Change Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental implications of using ‘underutilised agricultural land’ for future bioenergy crop production

Miyake

Smith

Peterson

et al. 2015

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land use change effects have emerged as an important area of global bioenergy sustainability policy and research. 'Underutilised agricultural land' has been previously proposed as a potential option for future bioenergy feedstock production that may minimise the environmental and social challenges of land use change. However, this has not been well tested to date. Our research aims to evaluate whether conversion of these lands to selected bioenergy crops can lead to favourable environmental outcomes for eight indicators related to water quantity and quality, and terrestrial biodiversity. A spatially explicit evaluation framework based on GIS was developed to quantify the environmental effects of land use change. The land use change scenarios, established in a case study region in subtropical Queensland, Australia, were for the production of Pongamia and two native eucalypt species (Spotted gum and Chinchilla white gum) on (i) existing 'underutilised' open grazing areas, (ii) existing 'underutilised' forested grazing areas, and (iii) all available 'underutilised agricultural land' in the case study catchment, under both low and high management intensity. We found that environmental benefits can be gained in scenarios where (i) open grazing areas (e.g., pastures) were used; (ii) native woody perennial bioenergy crops were planted; and (iii) the new plantations were under low management intensity. Other scenarios resulted in reduced environmental outcomes. The results flagged the importance of careful planning and management strategies, and the need for future bioenergy policy to provide more detailed prescriptions concerning land use planning and management if 'underutilised agricultural lands' are used for future bioenergy crop production.

show abstract

Section: Land Use Change Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental implications of using ‘underutilised agricultural land’ for future bioenergy crop production

Miyake

Smith

Peterson

et al. 2015

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this is a common approach for policy assessment (Antle and Valdivia 2006, Bryan et al 2008, 2010a, 2010b, Hunt 2008, Dymond et al 2012, in reality many other factors also affect actual land use decision making (Pannell et al 2011). Many of these factors that include personal values, preferences, attitudes, and situations, e.g., health, are difficult to quantify over large areas, although attempts are being made (e.g., Raymond et al 2009).…”

Section: Landholder Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reforestation can have substantial cobenefits for: economic development, through increased landholder incomes (Bryan et al 2011b); biodiversity, through environmental plantings (Crossman et al 2011); soils, through reduced erosion and salinization (Bartle et al 2007, Harper et al 2007); and energy security, through bioenergy processing (Bryan et al 2008(Bryan et al , 2010a(Bryan et al , 2010b. However, reforestation may also have other socioeconomic and environmental costs such as reduced water availability.…”

Section: Other Cobenefits and Trade-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scenario analysis has been used to quantify spatially-explicit trade-offs between food production and greenhouse gas mitigation through bioenergy land uses (Bryan et al 2010a, Thomson et al 2010, but only for a limited number of spatial and policy options. Alternatively, Polasky et al (2008) searched for efficient land use combinations to maximize species conservation for a range of levels of economic returns, and vice versa, resulting in a Pareto-optimal frontier of spatially explicit land use arrangements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Food-Carbon Trade-offs between Agriculture and Reforestation Land Uses under Alternate Market-based Policies

Paterson¹,

Bryan²

2012

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Understanding the effects of payments on the adoption of reforestation in agricultural areas and the associated food-carbon trade-offs is necessary to inform climate change policy. Economic viability of reforestation under payment per hectare and payment per tonne schemes for carbon sequestration was assessed in a region in southern Australia supporting 6.1 Mha of rain-fed agriculture. The results show that under the median scenario, a carbon price of 27 A$/tCO 2 -e could make onethird of the study area (nearly 2 Mha) more profitable for reforestation than agriculture, and at 58 A$/tCO 2 -e all of the study area could become more profitable. The results were sensitive to variation in carbon risk factor, establishment costs, and discount rates. Pareto-optimal land allocation could realize one-third of the potential carbon sequestration from reforestation (16.35 MtCO 2 -e/yr at a carbon risk factor of 0.8) with a loss of less than one-tenth (107.89 A$M/yr) of the agricultural production. Both payment schemes resulted in efficiencies within 1% of the Pareto-optimum. Understanding food-carbon trade-offs and policy efficiencies can inform carbon policy design.

show abstract

“…Many studies worldwide have examined the financial profitability of alternative land uses and the attractiveness of economic incentives through mechanisms such as payments for ecosystem services and agri-environment schemes (Connor et al, 2008;Hein et al, 2013;Wunder et al, 2008). Carbon forestry (Paterson and Bryan, 2012), biodiversity plantings (Polglase et al, 2013), the production of biofuels (Bryan et al, 2010a;Fischer et al, 2010) and bioenergy (Bryan et al, 2010b;Schneider and McCarl, 2003) feedstock may all potentially provide economically viable alternatives to conventional agriculture under the right policy settings. However, the widespread uptake of these alternatives faces many challenges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real options analysis for land use management: Methods, application, and implications for policy

Regan

Bryan

Connor

et al. 2015

Journal of Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potential of woody biomass production for motivating widespread natural resource management under climate change

Cited by 42 publications

References 61 publications

Environmental implications of using ‘underutilised agricultural land’ for future bioenergy crop production

Environmental implications of using ‘underutilised agricultural land’ for future bioenergy crop production

Food-Carbon Trade-offs between Agriculture and Reforestation Land Uses under Alternate Market-based Policies

Real options analysis for land use management: Methods, application, and implications for policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About