4.7 Article

Climate change mitigation: A spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation

期刊

AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT
卷 126, 期 1-2, 页码 67-80

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.014

关键词

climate change; afforestation; reforestation; land use; spatial modeling; trees; forests; carbon; CDM-AR; land use change

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Within the Kyoto Protocol, the clean development mechanism (CDM) is an instrument intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while assisting developing countries in achieving sustainable development, with the multiple goals of poverty reduction, environmental benefits and cost-effective emission reductions. The CDM allows for a small percentage of emission reduction credits to come from afforestation and reforestation (CDM-AR) projects. We conducted a global analysis of land suitability for CDM-AR carbon 'sink' projects and identified large amounts of land (749 Mha) as biophysically suitable and meeting the CDM-AR eligibility criteria. Forty-six percent of all the suitable areas globally were found in South America and 27% in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Asia, despite the larger land mass, relatively less land was available. In South America and Sub-Saharan Africa the majority of the suitable land was shrubland/grassland or savanna. In Asia the majority of the land was low-intensity agriculture. The sociologic and ecological analyses showed that large amounts of suitable land exhibited relatively low population densities. Many of the most marginal areas were eliminated due to high aridity, which resulted in a generally Gaussian distribution of land productivity classes. If the cap on CDM-AR were raised to compensate for a substantially greater offset of carbon emission through sink projects, this study suggests that it will be increasingly important to consider implications on local to regional food security and local community livelihoods. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据