IHDP
UPDATE
N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S P R O G R A M M E O N G LO B A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L C H A N G E
03/2005
ISSN 1727-155X
LAND-USE AND LAND-COVER CHANGE: DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING AN AGENDA FOR LOCAL PROCESSES WITH GLOBAL IMPACTS B Y E RIC L AMBIN , H ELMUT G EIST AND R ONALD R. R INDFUSS
FO CUS: LAND-USE AND LAND-COVER CHANGE
C
O N T E N T S
1 Land-Use and Land-Cover Change:
Developing and Implementing an Agenda for Local Processes with Global Impacts | E. Lambin, H. Geist, R. R. Rindfuss 4 Global Changes in Land Cover |
N. Ramankutty et. al. 6 Causes, Trajectories and Syndromes
of Land-Use/Cover Change | H. Geist, E. Lambin, W. McConnell, D. Alves 8 Pixels or Agents? Modelling Land-
Use and Land-Cover Change | P. Verburg, K. Kok, T. Veldkamp 10 Global Land Scenarios: The Search
for the Future of Land | J. Alcamo, G. Busch 12 Multiple Impacts of Land-Use/ Graphics by Josh Taylor
Cover Change | A. Chhabra, H. Haberl, A. Braimoh 13 Linking Land-Use/Cover Change
Science and Policy | R. S. Reid, X. Jianchu, H. Geist 14 Frontier in Land-Use/Cover Change
Research | The LUCC Scientific Steering Committee Following preparatory work in the early 1990s, the Land-Use/Cover Change (LUCC) project was created to develop a research agenda for one of the primary drivers of global change. It was organized as an interdisciplinary joint core project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), formalized in 1995 through the publication of its science/research plan (Turner et al., 1995) and reaching the stage of full implementation four years later (Lambin et al., 1999). From its beginning, the project was unique because it integrated social and biophysical science. After a decade of operation, the LUCC project will phase out in October 2005. Here we introduce this special issue with its seven articles, and provide thoughts on the LUCC project. The three missions of the LUCC project had been to build a compendium of information about local land-use and land-cover dynamics, to identify a small number of robust principles that can better knit together local insights into a predictive science,
16 List of Authors 17 GECHS and LOICZ:
Meeting Reports 18 In Brief, Publications 19 Meeting Calendar, Publications
continued on page 2
W W W. I H D P. O R G I H D P U p d a t e i s p u b l i s h e d b y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l H u m a n D i m e n s i o n s P ro g r a m m e o n G l o b a l E n v i r o m e n t a l C h a n g e ( I H D P ) , Wa l t e r - F l e x - S t r. 3 , 5 3 1 1 3 B o n n , G e r m a n y, V. i . S . d. P. : U l a L ö w
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change INTRODUCTION AND EDITORIAL
and to foster the development of common models which may then become widely available to scientists and stakeholders. To implement the project’s science/research plan, six major research themes were set up (box). The time frame for the science questions was the past 300 years as well as the next 100. For most regions of the world, this time frame corresponds to the most rapid land cover transformations.
Box: Science questions of the Land-Use/Cover Change (LUCC) project (1) How has land cover been changed by human use over the last 300 years? (2) What are the major human causes of land-cover change in different geographical and historical contexts? (3) How will changes in land use affect land cover in the next 50–100 years? (4) How do human and biophysical dynamics affect the coupled human-environment system? (5) How might changes in climate (variability) and biogeochemistry affects both land use and land cover, and vice versa? (6) How do land uses and land covers affect the vulnerability of the coupled human-environment system?
Three foci – land-use change, land-cover dynamics, and modelling – were identified. They served as interlocking strategies requiring a combination of perspectives. The following article by Navin Ramankutty et al. features the major outcomes in the field of land-cover dynamics (mainly addressing science question no. 1). The article by Geist et al. presents findings on the causes and pathways of land change (science question no. 2), and the articles by Peter Verburg et al. (modelling) and Joseph Alcamo et al. (scenarios) address science question no. 3. The remaining science questions are at least partly dealt with in the articles by Abha Chhabra et al. (on multiple impacts) and by Reid et al. (on linking land change science and policy). The final article summarizes recent thinking of the scientic steering committee, providing an outlook on the research frontier, which includes the heritage that is handed over from LUCC to the new Global Land Project. Historically, three major periods of LUCC can be distinguished. In the first (1995–1998), major efforts were undertaken to establish the foundations of LUCC, moving towards full implementation. This was primarily achieved through the establishment of basic support infrastructure, i.e., scientific steering committee, international project office, foci offices, endorsed projects, and regional networks. This was further accomplished through catalytic development of landuse/cover change science by associated groups such as the Land-Cover/Land-Use Change (LCLUC) Program of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the International Geographical Union (IGU) Commission on Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, both established in 1996. 2 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
In a second period, following completion of the implementation strategy in 1999, major headway was made towards synthesizing methodologies and generating results on landuse/cover change for various classes of land change such as tropical deforestation, desertification, agricultural intensification, and urbanization (see figure). This was primarily achieved through a series of synthesis workshops and conferences. The support infrastructure and dialogue with funding agencies in the Americas, Europe and Asia continued to be maintained. In the final phase of the LUCC project, starting around 2003, the concept of land-use transition was discussed within the scientific steering committee and implications were drawn for a transition towards sustainable land use. Also in this final phase, efforts have been concentrated on the creation of a synthesis book, which is nearing completion and the contents of which are reflected in the following seven articles. From the beginning, researchers from multiple disciplines spanning the physical, spatial and social sciences have been involved in LUCC. These researchers brought with them the methods and theories of the disciplines in which they were trained. Much of the early work on integration across studies involved either data and methodological issues or substantive empirical results. The empirical work, especially the case studies, was guided by multiple theories, with the specific mix primarily determined by the disciplinary origins of the investigators on the team. What has not yet emerged is an overarching theory that incorporates the insights from multiple social and natural sciences, and that explains change in the behavior of people as well as land cover/use change. We believe the time is ripe for one or more such overarching theories to be developed. There is evidence that a land change science is emerging, building on the foundations constructed by LUCC. We are seeing a steady increase in conferences devoted to land change, journal articles reporting land change science results, and funding available to pursue land change science. Emerging sciences need their own theories. Empirical research has started to produce a number of stylized facts that can serve as grist for more general theorizing. Moreover, the practical issues to which land change science has been responding (e.g., climate change and biodiversity loss) demand more comprehensive theories so that we can better understand the past and predict the future. While we are not ready to propose an overarching theory of land change, we are in a position to understand some issues that such a theory must address. First, an overarching land change theory needs to engage both the behavior of people and the uses to which land units are put, as well as feedbacks from one to the other. Second, an overarching theory of land change needs to be multi-level with respect to both people and pixels, recognizing that they can combine in ways that affects their collective and individual behaviors. Third, an overarching theory of land change would need to incorporate the extent to which people, pixels and ecosystems are connected to the broader world in which they exist. Fourth, an overarching theory of land use will need to incorporate time, both past time (history) and the future. LUCC has produced numerous insights on rates, causes, patterns, impacts, and future scenarios of land-use/-cover
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change INTRODUCTION AND EDITORIAL
International Organizations and Global Environmental Governance Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
2-3 December 2005 endorsed by IHDP core projects IDGEC and IT
The IHDP UPDATE newsletter features the activities of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and its research community.
Figure: Case study comparison as a tool to synthesize generalized information. Sources: Brookfield, Harold Chilingworth 1962. Local study and comparative method: An example from central New Guinea. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 52: 242252. Turner, B.L. II/Hanham, Robert Q. & Anthony V. Portararo (1977): Population pressure and agricultural intensity. – Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 67 (3), S. 384-396. change at multiple scales. Now, we believe it is a good time for LUCC to end and the new IGBP/IHDP Global Land Project to begin. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/ updatelucc05/references.htm E RIC L AMBIN , Chair of the LUCC Scientic Steering Committee, and H ELMUT G EIST , Executive Director of LUCC, are Guest Editors of this UPDATE. Please note that all authors of the LUCC articles will be featured on page 16.
ISSN 1727-155X UPDATE is published by the IHDP Secretariat Walter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany. EDITOR: Ula Löw, IHDP;
[email protected] LAYOUT AND PRINT: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn+Berlin, Germany UPDATE is published four times per year. Sections of UPDATE may be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Please send a copy of any reproduced material to the IHDP Secretariat. This newsletter is produced using funds by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the United States National Science Foundation (NSF). The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of IHDP or its sponsoring organizations
Global Environmental Change: Regional Challenges An Earth System Science Partnership Global Environmental Change Open Science Conference
2nd International Young Scientists’ Global Change Conference 7-8 November 2006 · Beijing, China Call for Papers – Young scientists (age 35 years or less) are invited to submit papers and posters on physical, biological and human aspects of global change. Please find detailed instructions for applications on the START website: www.start.org
Beijing, China · 9-12 November 2006 Proposals for sessions may be submitted online October – November 2005 at www.essp.org/ESSP2006 Abstracts for presentations and posters may be submitted online February – May 2006
IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 3
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change LAND-COVER CHANGE
GLOBAL CHANGES IN LAND COVER B Y NAVIN R AMANKUTTY, F RÉDÉRIC ACHARD, D IOGENES A LVES , B. L. T URNER II, RUTH D E F RIES , K EES K LEIN G OLDEWIJK , L ISA G RAUMLICH , ROBIN S. R EID 1. INTRODUCTION
Human activities have transformed our planet’s landscape for a long time, initially through the control of fire, and later through the domestication of plants and animals. More recently, using fossil fuels, humans have significantly increased the pace, extent, and intensity of land-use change. Today, roughly a third of the world’s landscapes are being used for growing crops or grazing cattle. During the 20th century, landuse changes have emerged as a “global” phenomenon, with earth system consequences. There are numerous local-to-regional scale studies of landscape change around the world. However, to understand their earth system implications, a consistent, synoptic, global view is necessary. To tackle this important challenge, the LUCC project oversaw two synthesis initiatives. The BIOME 300 project, a joint LUCC-PAGES initiative, promoted the development of two global historical data sets of land-cover change over the last 300 years. More recently, LUCC conducted a study, commissioned by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), to identify locations of the world undergoing the most rapid land-cover change today. In a chapter of the project’s final synthesis book (Ramankutty et al., forthcoming), we describe changes in global land cover, the challenges we face in monitoring them, and some proposals for meeting those challenges. 2. HISTORICAL CHANGES IN GLOBAL LAND COVER
It is common knowledge today that tropical rainforests are being lost to human activities at unprecedented rates with enormous consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. However, it is less well recognized that extensive land cover changes have occurred in the past. There are numerous well-documented case studies of the impact of ancient humans on landscapes: case studies of Ain Ghazal in southern Jordan, of the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico, of deforestation of the cedars of Lebanon, and the story of Easter Island are all examples. A recent study offered an intriguing global view of early human influence, suggesting that land-use activities might have started influencing the global atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide and methane roughly 8000 and 5000 years ago respectively. The pace and intensity of land-cover change accelerated over the last three centuries. According to BIOME 300, cropland areas increased from roughly 3–4 million km2 in 1700 to ~15–18 million km 2 in 1990 (see figure). Estimates of grazing land area are more uncertain, but available estimates show an increase from ~500 million km2 in 1700 to ~3100 million km2 in 1990. Croplands expanded predominantly at the expense of forests (except in the North American savanna and prairies), while grazing land was mostly converted from savannas, grasslands, and shrublands (except in Latin America). 4 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
Different parts of the world followed different trajectories of cropland expansion, following the general patterns of European migration and globalization of the economy. In 1700, much of the large-scale cultivation was confined to the Old World – in Europe, the flood plains of India and China, and portions of Africa. With European colonization, new settlement frontiers appeared in the Americas, South Africa, Australia, and the Former Soviet Union. North America and the Former Soviet Union experienced large expansion of croplands since ~1850. The newly developing nations of the world in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia experienced their most rapid cropland expansion in the post-World War II era. China expanded its croplands steadily over most of the last three centuries. The post-World War II era saw a shift in land-use practices toward intensification, with increased use of irrigation, fertilization, pesticides and herbicides, new varieties of crops, and multiple cropping. As a result, croplands were abandoned in the eastern United States, Europe, and China. Indeed, a new trend is the loss of prime farmland to urban expansion. Between 1961 and 2002, croplands expanded by only 15% globally, but irrigated areas doubled, fertilizer consumption increased by 4.5 times, and the number of tractors used in farming increased by 2.4 times. 3. MOST RAPID LAND-COVER CHANGES OF THE RECENT DECADES
Forest change. Deforestation is not widespread throughout the world but is largely confined to a few well-known “hotspots” with 2 to 5% annual rates of deforestation. The Amazon Basin and Southeast Asia are the regions with the largest number of deforestation hotspots. The temperate and boreal forests are relatively less well studied, but it is believed that forest degradation in Eurasia is increasing from unsustainable logging and increase in fire frequency. While there is some agreement about the general locations of deforestation at a regional scale, there is much controversy about the rates of deforestation. The Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated a net tropical forest loss of 12 million ha yr–1 (6.4 million ha yr–1 loss for the humid tropics alone) during the 1990s. New remote-sensing based estimates of tropical deforestation indicate that FRA may have overestimated deforestation rates by ~31% (humid tropics) to 114% (all tropics). Intercomparison of these studies suggests that the biggest disagreement is in dry tropical Africa; however, even when dry tropical Africa is ignored, the FRA estimates are higher by roughly 30%. Furthermore, both the extent and the rate of change of some open-forest biomes under high human pressure, like the Brazilian cerrado, still remain unassessed. Cropland change. Southeast Asia witnessed the largest expansion of croplands in the recent decades. The other crop-
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change LAND-COVER CHANGE
land hotspots were located in Bangladesh, along the Indus valley, portions of the Middle East and Central Asia, around the Great Lakes of East Africa, southern Amazon Basin, and the Great Plains of the United States (although much of the croplands in the Great Plains is part of a soil conservation program and is not sown). Croplands were abandoned in the lowlands of southeastern United States, eastern China, and parts of Brazil and Argentina. The post-World War II period has also seen a shift toward cropland intensification. Urbanization change. Roughly half the world’s population lived in towns and cities in the year 2000, mainly located along the coastal zones and inland waterways, in South and Southeast Asia, eastern US, and Western Europe. Population growth of urban areas Figure: Global land-cover changes from BIOME 300. outstripped those of rural areas during 19902000, particularly in the developing world. In increased susceptibility to fires and drought, leads to highly terms of land-cover change, cities themselves only occupy variable, and often episodic, land-cover changes, characterroughly 2-3% of the earth’s land surface; cities impact rural ized by positive-feedback relationships between climate and land use, however, through their “ecological footprint”. A land-use practices. handful of “global cities” (e.g., New York, London, Tokyo) have become command centers of the globalization of economy, 5. THE WAY FORWARD finances and culture, cross-cutting the various driving forces and trajectories of global land use dynamics. Land-cover change monitoring requires high spatial and Dryland change. Synthesis of dryland degradation studies temporal resolution satellite data (30m-resolution Landsat continues to be plagued by definitional and conceptual dishas become the standard). However, wall-to-wall land-cover agreements, and by major gaps in global coverage. Reliable mapping using Landsat is prohibitive at the global scale data on changes in drylands are lacking; most data available to (although, it is demonstrated at the regional-scale over the LUCC-MA study was heterogeneous in terms of monitorAmazonia by the annual deforestation mapping project of ing methods or indicators. Nevertheless, the available evidence INPE, Brazil), as well as difficult to perform due to issues indicated that Asia was a main area with degraded drylands, such as cloud cover and partial failure of the ETM+ and no evidence was found supporting claims of the African (onboard Landsat-7) sensor. On the other hand, globally Sahel as being a desertification hotspot. available moderate resolution data (250m to 1km) from AVHRR/VEGETATION/MODIS /MERIS sensors are poor at 4. CHALLENGES IN CHARACTERIZING LAND-COVER estimating rates of deforestation without additional calibraCHANGES tion; they, however, may be capable of identifying locations of deforestation fronts. An optimal solution may be to use While much progress has been made in characterizing the moderate resolution data to identify locations of the world rates and patterns of global land-cover change, some uncertainundergoing land-cover change, and to use stratified statistity remains. For example, we have very poor understanding, at cal samples of Landsat-type data within them to identify the global scale, of changes in tropical dry forests, forest changes rates of change. resulting from logging, changes in fire frequency and insect Land-cover monitoring needs to integrate stakeholders damage, soil erosion and degradation of croplands, changes in (land managers) in the process. Important criteria include grazing lands, dryland degradation, changes in wetlands, and 1) designing the monitoring system to match the informachanges in suburban, peri-urban, and exurban landscapes. tion being requested, 2) performing analysis at the scale of Certain types of land-cover change are difficult to characinterest to the land managers, and 3) incorporating indigeterize because of their complexity. For example, land-cover nous knowledge to obtain a more complete analysis. Landmodifications, which are subtle changes in the characteristics cover change monitoring may also need to be supplemented of land cover without change in the overall classification, are by other sources of information such as local observational more difficult to characterize than land-cover conversions, networks, census data, land surveys, household surveys, etc., defined as the complete replacement of one land cover type to detect subtle land-cover modifications and to enable by another. Another issue is related to the tight coupling characterization of the complete suite of land-cover between climate variability and land-cover change in some changes. locations. The complex relationship between precipitation variability and vegetation change in the African Sahel, R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website between fires in the Amazon and El Niño events, between grazing and desertification, or forest fragmentation and at www.ihdp.org/updatelucc05/references.htm IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 5
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change LAND-USE DYNAMICS
CAUSES, TRAJECTORIES AND SYNDROMES OF LAND-USE/COVER CHANGE B Y H ELMUT G EIST, E RIC L AMBIN , W ILLIAM M C C ONNELL AND D IÓGENES A LVES One of the key activities of the LUCC project has been to generate syntheses of knowledge on land-use/cover change processes, and in particular to advance understanding of the causes and trajectories of land change. A middle path was pursued between cross-sectional, broad scale (often national) statistical analyses and local, fine scale (often village-level) case studies. These “intermediate analyses” combined the richness of in-depth case studies with the power of generalization gained from larger samples, thus sharing the benefits of both, while minimizing their respective weaknesses. PROXIMATE AND UNDERLYING CAUSES
From roughly a dozen of major studies on causes of landuse change – meta-analyses as well as collections of data in situ across a variety of national boundaries using common data protocols – it became clear that no single driver of land change is at hand. For example, a nuanced consideration of the population variable is needed for decadal-scale processes (i.e., never works alone but always with other factors in synergetic interaction, is often endogenous, and migrations is a “fast” demographic variable with impacts on land use). As a consequence, the division, as originally laid down in the LUCC science plan, between proximate causes (i.e., agricultural expansion, wood extraction, infrastructure extension) and underlying driving forces (i.e., economic, institutional, technological, demographic and cultural factors) has been enriched. Other variables deemed as important in land change processes were mediating factors, trigger events, and accelerating or attenuating feedbacks. It is now widely accepted that multiple factors in synergetic interactions dominate land-change processes, and that these causal clusters vary across regions and time. On the one hand, LUCC studies did not follow those proponents of complexity who state that correlations between land change and multiple causative factors are contextual, many and varied, and do not reveal any distinct pattern. Not denying the fact that context matters, our comparisons of hundreds of disparate case studies in meta-analyses revealed that a limited and recurrent set of variables are associated with major land-change classes. Taking the case of desertification, a set of such ‘robust’ factors has been identified to include changes in precipitation combined with government policy promoting growth in the agricultural sector and remote, urban or global demands for agricultural commodities (such as cotton, grain, and grapes) along with the introduction of new technology in the context of a tenure regime ill-suited to these new circumstances and lacking flexibility. This example not only proves that single-factor causation (e.g., undue management by indigenous pastoralists) must be dismissed, but it also points to the operation of coupled human-environment systems within which land managers are sensitive to social and biophysical feedbacks, and adjust 6 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
land-use decisions accordingly. Likewise, from a wide array of case studies, a suite of social and biophysical factors have been found to be associated with deforestation, cropland change, urbanization, and desertification, as laid down in a book chapter of the project’s final synthesis book (Geist et al., forthcoming). TRAJECTORIES OF LAND CHANGE
Place-based research and syntheses in the form of comparative analyses identified some dominant pathways of land-use change. Pathways (or trajectories) usually encompass typical successions or dominant “stories” of causes and events leading, for example, to tropical deforestation or desertification. However, trajectories not only vary substantially between major geographical entities but also over time. In a forest frontier region such as the Brazilian Amazon, for example, rubber extraction for the world market (from end of 19th to mid-20th century) was followed by integration of forested regions into national economic development, mainly through pasture creation (2nd half of 20th century). More recently, cattle ranching that heavily depended on subsidies and land speculation in the 1970s and 1980s evolved into intensified land uses for (semi)urban markets, relying upon well-developed transport and other infrastructures to satisfy local as well as national demand for cattlebased products. Most recently, there is indication that globalized market demands regain power in local land-use decisions to convert forests (e.g., for soybean and beef). Thus, what appears to be a typically homogenous agricultural frontier pathway in the land-use history of forested mainland South America, related to in-migrating individual colonists’ land-use decisions, is indeed driven by local urban as well as remote economic influences, with strong oscillations and overlaps between poverty- and capital-driven land-use dynamics. Some of the conclusions from the analysis of pathways of land-use change point to the need to consider sufficiently long land change histories to track a region’s transformation over time, including land-use transitions. Also, the ways in which people make land-use decisions represents an important set of proximate factors that influence land use, but these framing practices in turn influence and are influenced by other (underlying) driving forces. Apart from purely economic deliberations, land managers commonly have various motivations, collective memories, and personal histories, and it is their attitudes, values, beliefs, and individual perceptions which influence land-use decisions, for example, through their perception of and attitude toward risk. Understanding the controlling models of various actors may thus explain the management of resources, adaptive strategies, compliance or resistance to policies, or social learning, and therefore social resilience in the face of land-use change.
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change LAND-USE DYNAMICS
Resource scarcity causing pressure of production on resources Slow
Fast
Changing opportunities created by markets
Outside policy intervention
Natural population growth Increase in commercializa- Economic development and division of land tion and agro-industrial- programs parcels ization Perverse subsidies, policyDomestic life cycles that Improvement in accessibil- induced price distortions lead to changes in labor ity through road construc- and fiscal incentives availability tion Frontier development Loss of land productivity Changes in market prices (e.g., for geopolitical on sensitive areas follow- for inputs or outputs (e.g., reasons or to promote ing excessive or inappro- erosion of prices of priinterest groups) priate use mary production, unfavorable global or urban-rural Poor governance and Failure to restore or to corruption terms of trade) maintain protective works Insecurity in land tenure of environmental Off-farm wages and resources employment opportunities Heavy surplus extraction away from the land manager Spontaneous migration, forced population displacement, refugees
Capital investments
Changes in national or global macro-economic Decrease in land availabili- and trade conditions that ty due to encroachment lead to changes in prices by other land uses (e.g., (e.g., surge in energy natural reserves or the prices or global financial tragedy of enclosure) crisis)
Loss of adaptive Changes in social capacity and increased organization, in vulnerability resource access, and in attitudes Impoverishment (e.g., creeping household debts, no access to credit, lack of alternative income sources, and weak buffering capacity) Breakdown of informal social security networks Dependence on external resources or on assistance
Changes in institutions governing access to resources by different land managers (e.g., shift from communal to private rights, tenure, holdings, and titles) Growth of urban aspirations Breakdown of extended family
Social discrimination (ethnic minorities, women, Growth of individualism lower class people, or caste and materialism members) Lack of public education and poor information flow on the environment
Rapid policy changes (e.g., Internal conflicts devaluation) Illness (e.g., HIV) Government instability Risks associated with natWar ural hazards (e.g., leading to a crop failure, loss of resource, or loss of productive capacity)
Loss of entitlements to environmental resources (e.g., expropriation for large-scale agriculture, large dams, forestry projects, tourism and wildlife conservation), which leads to an ecological marginalization of the poor
New technologies for intensification of resource use
Table: Typology of the causes of land-use change (from Lambin et al., 2003) ‘SYNDROMES’ OF LAND CHANGE
Case study comparisons revealed that not all causes of land change and all levels of organization are equally important. This prompted an attempt to reduce the complexity of the analysis of causes by identifying a limited suite of processes and variables which makes the problem tractable at any scale. The syndrome approach has already been applied, aiming at a high level of generality in the description of mechanisms of environmental degradation. Landuse change is driven by a few high-level causes or syndromes, as formed by the combination of ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ variables (see table): (a) resource scarcity leading to an increase in the pressure of production on resources, (b) changing opportunities created by markets, (c) outside policy intervention, (d) loss of adaptive capacity and increased vulnerability, and (e) changes in social organization, in resource access, and in attitudes. Some of these fundamental causes
are experienced as constraints. They force local land managers into degradation, innovation, or displacement pathways. The other causes are associated with the seizure of new opportunities by land managers who seek to realize their diverse aspirations. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatelucc05/references.htm
Submission of material for assessment by the IPCC Working Group II Fourth Assessment: Climate Change, Adaptation and Vulnerability
Deadline: 14th April 2006 www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html
IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 7
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change MODELS OF LAND CHANGE
PIXELS OR AGENTS? Modelling Land-Use and Land-Cover Change B Y P ETER V ERBURG , K ASPER KOK AND TOM V ELDKAMP Since the publication of the LUCC science plan and implementation strategy, considerable advances in the field of regional and global land-use change models have been made. The science plan indicated that the major task would be the development of a new generation of land-use/cover change models capable of simulating the major socio-economic and biophysical driving forces of land-use and land-cover change. In addition, these models were supposed to be able to handle interactions at several spatial and temporal scales. Recent publications indicate that the LUCC science community has successfully met this challenge: a wide range of advanced models, aiming at different scales and research questions, is now available. One of the most important observations that can be made after a review of land-use/cover change models is the wide variety in approaches and concepts underlying the models. Particularly noteworthy are recent advances in the development of agent-based models. However, the diversity in modelling approaches should continue to be encouraged and potential complementarities should be exploited. WHY MODEL?
Modelling involves the use of artificial representations of the interactions within the land-use system to explore its dynamics and possible future development. Modelling should be seen as one of the methods in the portfolio of techniques and approaches available to unravel the dynamics of the landuse system. Whereas descriptive and narrative approaches focus on mostly qualitative descriptions of the land-use system, models require a structural, mostly quantitative, analysis. Gaps in knowledge become obvious during the model-building process, and the dependence of land-use patterns and crucial relationships on changes in key variables can be tested. Such analysis can help to identify the most important mechanisms of change in a certain area that could not be identified from field observations. Such results may lead to new insights or guide further analysis of the land-use change processes. In this perspective, models are used as a learning tool to formalize knowledge. Since real-life experiments in land-use systems are difficult, computer models can be used as a computational laboratory in which the hypotheses about the processes of land-use change are tested. Apart from being a learning tool in unravelling the driving factors and system dynamics, land-use change models play an important role in exploring possible future developments in the land-use system. With a model the functioning of the system can be explored through “what-if ” scenarios and the visualization of alternative land-use configurations that may be the result of policy decisions or developments in society as described in scenarios. These exploratory and projective capacities allow models to be used as a communication and learning environment for stakeholders involved in land-use decision-making. Projections can be used as an early warning system for the effects of future land-use changes and pinpoint 8 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
hotspots that are priority areas for in-depth analysis or policy intervention. CONTRASTING APPROACHES
The diversity of models and modelling approaches has become increasingly large, which provides a major challenge when preparing a review. This diversity can be explained by the wide range of research topics in which models are used as a tool, the different scales of application, ranging from the very local to the global extent and the absence of an all-compassing theory of land-use change. The widely different objectives as well as the development of models that integrate different theories and modelling concepts makes it troublesome to classify models or approaches into distinct categories. Therefore, a book chapter in the project’s final synthesis book (Verburg, Kok, Veldkamp and Pontius, forthcoming) indicates a number of distinguishing issues rather than model categories. These issues mostly refer to archetypal descriptions of contrasts in approach or concept, even though most actual models do not comply with these extreme descriptions. The simplest distinction can be made between modelling approaches that aim at explicating the spatial dimensions of LUCC and those that do not address location issues. The majority of the modelling approaches are spatially explicit due to the general notion that “location matters” and the importance of the spatial variation in biophysical and socio-economic constraints and opportunities. It is also possible to make a distinction between broad groups of models based on their temporal explicitness. Dynamic models can provide insight into the complex interactions operating on land. These models are especially useful in cases where there are nonlinearities, path-dependencies, and other complex, emergent properties. Static models, such as most statistical models, do not explicitly account for temporal interactions but can be used to derive strong, quantitative measures of the relationships among a set of variables and how these generate, in equilibrium, a particular, spatial pattern of land-use/cover change. Another major difference between broad groups of land-use models is the role of theory. Although all modelling approaches somehow use theory as a guiding principle in selecting driving factors and relationships, major differences can be distinguished. Whereas some, mostly deductive, approaches aim at extending and testing theory formulation, others use inductive reasoning based on extensive data sets of land-use/cover (change) in combination with statistical techniques to specify the relationships within the model. Although these approaches may start from a different perspective, they may provide complementary information: inductive explorations may suggest mechanisms that can be included in theory while deductive approaches suggest factors that are causally related and thus should be accounted for in inductive models. A final distinction between model types can be made based on the simulat-
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change MODELS OF LAND CHANGE
pose restrictions on the applicability and suitability of a particular model by its spatial and temporal scale and dominant land-use change process. For example, a spatially explicit cellular automata model may be well suited to explore urban growth dynamics but is incapable of fully exploring the driving factors of agricultural transitions. The wide selection of models and modelling approaches that has become available provides the researcher with the opportunity to select the modelling approach that best fits the research questions and characteristics of the study area. In many cases it may even be most appropriate to use different models to Figure: Model outputs can initiate discussions on the future of land use: an example study the same region. Comparing the outof a model run for Europe based on the EURURALIS project comes of such models may lead to a better and more complete understanding of the system dynamics. Again, the different modelling approaches ed objects. In many spatially explicit models the unit of are not competitors, but complements that can inform each analysis is an area of land, either a polygon representing a other. Agent-based models can explore mechanisms that can, field, plot or census track, or a pixel as part of a raster-based later, be included in spatial simulation models. representation. Land-use changes are calculated for these spatial objects, resulting in maps that show the changes in THE WAY FORWARD land-use pattern. The disadvantage of this “landbased”approach is the poor match with the agents of landRecent developments show that a number of modelling use change. Individual farmers or plot owners are usually not approaches are starting to combine different modelling conrepresented explicitly and the simulations usually do not cepts and techniques into “hybrid” models. Such models use match with the units of decision making. A second, rapidly the strength of different concepts to model the different expanding, group of models use individual agents as units of processes of land-use change, acknowledging that no single simulation. Several characteristics define agents: they are technique or approach sufficiently describes the different autonomous, they share an environment through agent comprocesses at all the spatial and temporal scales relevant to munication and interaction, and they make decisions that tie land-use/cover change. The development of “hybrid” behaviour to the environment. Such multi-agent systems approaches may lead to elaborated and complex models. emphasize the decision-making process of the agents and the Therefore, the development of such approaches should take social organization and landscape in which these individuals care for a good balance between simplicity (and transparency) are embedded. An agent can represent any level of organizaand complexity depending on the characteristics of the system tion (a herd, a village, an institution, etc.), and is not thus studied and the research/policy questions to be answered. necessarily an individual. Agent-based approaches have used Within the LUCC community a plea is frequently made for a range of models of human decision making, from simple the use of multi-agent models. The use of multi-agent models heuristics to fully rational or bounded rationality specificashould indeed be encouraged because these models offer a tions. A disadvantage of the agent as the basic unit of simulapromising and yet mostly unexplored way to simulate land use tion is the difficulty to adequately represent agent behaviour dynamics at the level of the actual decision making. However, and to link it to the actual land areas. Simple, highly abstract, the potential strengths of multi-agent models cannot cover the multi-agent models have been successfully used to examine benefits of all other modelling approaches. Multi-agent modalternative processes that may lead to collective behaviour in els generally have high data requirements and their specificaland-use decision making. Well established multi-agent tion requires deep understanding of decision making when models to predict changes for real landscapes have become they are used to simulate realistic case studies. For some studavailable only recently. Such models are very data demanding ies this detail is essential, but for many studies well-calibrated and the specification of realistic agent behaviour and diversispatial simulation models are easier to specify and provide sufty is very challenging, especially when it comes to the behavficient detail. Therefore, the diversity in modelling approaches iour of agents at higher levels of organizations such as instishould be encouraged and potential complementarities tutions. should be exploited. Only by doing this, models of landuse/over change will continue to be an important tool in WHAT’S THE BEST MODEL? improving our understanding of land-use/cover change processes and in informing discussions among stakeholders There is no single modelling approach that is clearly supe(see figure). rior to model land-use/cover change. The choice of model is largely dependent on the research or policy questions that R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website need to be answered. No modelling approach is capable to answer all questions. Furthermore, the research questions may at www.ihdp.org/updatelucc05/references.htm IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 9
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change SCENARIOS OF LAND CHANGE
GLOBAL LAND SCENARIOS The Search for the Future of Land BY JOSEPH ALCAMO AND GERALD BUSCH It was only fairly recently that the global scientific community turned its attention to the future of land use and land cover on earth. Of course spatial planners and scientists have concerned themselves for decades with land-use changes on the local to national scale. But it took the linkage of tropical deforestation with global atmospheric CO2 to make land-use change a global issue. From the work carried out so far, it has become clear that to anticipate future climate change and other global changes it is necessary to project the future of global land use and cover. Yet the scientific community has been hesitant to take up this challenge – an understandable situation considering that the projection of land use/cover requires the simulation of global vegetation (including the computation of future areas of cropland, forest and grassland) as well the modelling of society’s countless decisions on where to settle, where to build, where to grow its crops, and what lands to protect. Some researchers have found a limited solution to this challenge by developing scenarios of future land use and cover. Scenarios are plausible views of the future based on “if, then” assertions – if the specified conditions are met, then future land use and land cover will be realized in a particular way. Scenario analysis, as presented in a book chapter of the LUCC project’s final synthesis book (Alcamo et al., forthcoming) does not eliminate the uncertainties of the future state of land, but it does allow researchers to sum up current
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
10 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
knowledge in the form of consistent, conditional statements about the future. Two main inputs are needed for developing global land scenarios. First, a coherent set of assumptions are required for the driving forces of future land use/cover such as demographic changes, economic growth and technological development. Second, a model is needed to explain how driving forces affect different types of land use and cover. While there are many different approaches to modelling land-use and land-cover change, only two have been applied globally (land-use accounting models and rule-based/cellular automata models) because of data deficiencies, scaling mismatches, or long preparation and run time. Figures 1 and 2 show selected global scenarios based on these modelling approaches. Included are the Global Environmental Outlook scenarios of the United National Environment Programme, the “SRES” scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the scenarios of the Global Scenarios Group. The higher scenarios of future agricultural land (see figure 1) follow from assumptions about high population growth rates together with low but steady economic growth which combine to stimulate large increases in food demand. At the same time assumed slower rates of technological progress lead to slow to negligible increases in crop yield. These combined effects lead to a sizeable expansion of agricultural land, up to 40% between 1995 and 2100 (see figure 1).The majority of scenarios show an expansion of agricultural land Figure 1 during this period. The lower scenarios [Year 1995 = 1] have lower population assumptions leading 1.5 Scenarios with high population growth, slow technological to smaller food demands while higher eco3 1.4 improvements nomic growth stimulates technological 10 7 1.3 progress leading to rapid increases in crop 1.2 yields. The sum of these effects is lower 5 demand for agricultural land, with the low1.1 4 6 est scenario showing a decrease of more 1 1 8 than 20% in the global area of agricultural 0.9 land. Such large increases and decreases 9 0.8 Scenarios with higher economic 2 could have an important effect on the maggrowth, faster technological 0.7 nitude of greenhouse gas emissions, release improvements, and changes in food of nutrients and other trace substances to 0.6 preferences aquatic ecosystems, and other large scale 0.5 impacts on the earth system. 0.4 The global forest scenarios largely mirror the agricultural scenarios (see figure 2), and illustrate both the positive and negative Figure 1: Global scenarios of agricultural land from 1995 to 2100. Sources: Scenarios 1, 2, aspects of existing scenarios. On one hand, 3, 4: IPCC-SRES scenarios “A1”, “A2”, “B1”, “B2” (IPCC, 2000) computed with IMAGE the forest scenarios are a valuable illustramodel (IMAGE-Team, 2001). Scenarios 5, 6, 7, 8: Scenarios of Global Scenario Group tion of the connection between agricultural “Market Forces”, “Policy Reform”, “Fortress World”, “Great Transition” computed by PoleStar model (Kemp-Benedikt et al., 2002). Scenarios 9, 10: “GEO-3” scenarios (UNEP, trends and the future tempo of global 2004) “Markets First”, “Policy First” computed with PoleStar model. “Agricultural land” deforestation or afforestation. On the other comprises the land cover classes “Agricultural Land” and “Extensive Grassland” within the hand, these scenarios imply that forest IPCC-SRES scenarios computed by the IMAGE model, and is the sum of “Cropland” and trends are driven almost exclusively by “Grazing Land” in the remaining scenarios.
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change SCENARIOS OF LAND CHANGE
of the earth. But focusing too strongly on only one type of land gives an incomplete picture about the impacts of land-use [Year 1995 = 1] changes on the earth system. To achieve a 1.5 more complete picture, global scenarios 1.4 must also incorporate a realistic estimate of 1.3 2 future grasslands, forests and urban land. 1.2 While we work on expanding the scope of 10 4 the scenarios we should also extend the 1.1 1 8 methodologies used to compute global sce1 6 9 narios. Researchers must try to overcome 0.9 the barriers noted above (e.g., data defi5 3 0.8 ciencies) that hinder the application of dif0.7 7 ferent types of land-use models to global 0.6 scenario analysis. Summing up, while we are only in the 0.5 early stages of analysing the future state of 0.4 land use and land cover on earth, we have already learned much from existing scenarios. They indicate the possibility of long term Figure 2: Global scenarios of forest land from 1995 to 2100. The key to scenario numbers is and large scale changes in land use and land the same as in Figure 1. “Forest land” is defined as the sum of “Carbon Plantations”, cover with implications on many aspects of “Regrowth Forest”, “Boreal Forest”, “Cool Conifer Forest”, “Temperate Mixed Forest”, the earth system. They hint that long term “Temperate Deciduous Forest”, “Warm Mixed Forest”, and “Tropical Forest” within the SRES scenarios computed by the IMAGE model. For the trends may be reversed after some decades. remaining scenarios forest land is the sum of “Natural Forest” and “Plantation”. Their message is that we are mistaken if we assume that current land-use/cover patterns will remain the same, and we should do our best to develop cropland expansion or contraction and only deal superfiplausible views of its future changes. cially with global trade in forest products and plans for large-scale carbon sequestration in forests. Global scenarios Acknowledgement in general need to incorporate many more of the actual This article is reprinted, in a slightly shortened version, driving forces of land-use/cover change and in a more realisfrom LUCC Newsletter No. 10, 12-14, with kind permission of tic way. the authors and LUCC International Project Office. Despite these simplifications, large scale scenarios can provide insights and raise provocative questions. The set of REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at African forest scenarios, for example, show the interesting feature of distinct turning points at which deforestation www.ihdp.org/updatelucc05/references.htm reverses its direction some time between 2010 and 2050 (see figure 3). Several different scenarios point to an eventual slowing of Figure 3 food demand and technological “catch-up” in Africa which accelerates improvements in [Year 1995 = 1] crop yield. The net effect is a shift from 1.5 expanding to contracting agricultural land 1.4 Turning points: Population growth and a reversal of the trend in deforestation. and per capita consumption slows 1.3 agricultural technology catches up But even if the pressure of expanding crop2 Reversible deforestation? 1.2 land is alleviated, can deforestation be eco1 1.1 logically reversed within this time frame? 8 10 And what are the consequences of this rever1 sal on terrestrial biodiversity, the global 6 0.9 4 9 water cycle and other aspects of the earth 0.8 system? By stimulating such questions, sce5 0.7 nario analysis of land use/cover contributes 0.6 to setting the research agenda of earth sys3 0.5 tem science. 7 Where do we go from here? Up to now 0.4 most efforts at developing global scenarios have focused on agricultural land, and this is sensible considering the central role of Figure 3: Scenarios of forest land in Africa from 1995 to 2100. The key to scenario numbers agriculture in determining the landscapes is the same as in Figure 1. “Forest land” is defined as in Figure 2.
Figure 2
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 11
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change CONSEQUENCES OF LAND CHANGE
MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF LAND-USE/COVER CHANGE B Y A BHA C HHABRA , H ELMUT H ABERL A ND A DEMOLA B RAIMOH of the world also results in adverse human health conse The directly human-induced modification and converquences. Land-use/cover changes directly affect the habitat of sion of land-cover due to underlying forces of demographic, insect vectors of infectious human diseases e.g. malaria, economic, technological, policy/institutional, and cultural or African trypanosomiasis, Dengue fever. Increased vulnerabilisocio-political factors are one of the most visible of global ty to a variety of health risks ranks high among health conchanges over the last three centuries. The accelerated pace, cerns related to land-use/cover change. The indirect impacts magnitude, and spatial extent of these human transformations on health are associated with increased atmospheric concenof land has significantly influenced the earth's environment at trations of greenhouse gases (mainly methane, nitrous oxide, local, regional and global scales. Land-use/cover change is and carbon dioxide) resulting in global warming, stratospherincreasingly recognized as a major driver of global environic ozone depletion etc. mental change, while its multiple impacts may be associated Changes in land-use/cover also have profound influence on with “positive” or “negative” influences that affect the ability of the regional water balance and hydrological cycle. Soil degrabiological systems to support human needs. The continued dation is another challenge imposed by anthropogenic activiincrease in food and fibre production, resource use efficiency, ties leading to water erowealth, livelihood securision (top soil erosion and ty, welfare and human terrain deformation), well-being are among the wind erosion (top soil positive impacts of landecosystem good (e.g. food) erosion), chemical degrause/land cover changes. biodiversity (e.g. species hydrological response (e.g. dation (fertility decline, However, these changes extinctions) peak flow) acidification, pesticide are also associated with pollution, salinization, undesirable or negative biogeochemical response climate response (e.g. heavy metal and radioacinfluences such as mas(e.g. nutrient fluxes) temperature change) tive pollution), and physsive alterations of biohuman health response (e.g. ical degradation (comgeochemical cycles (e.g., disease incidence) paction, crusting, aridifinitrogen, carbon and cation and water logwater), ecosystem proging). Intense landcesses, earth-atmosphere use/cover changes in interactions, loss of bioecosystem good (e.g. food) coastal zones are leading diversity, and soil degrato degradation of highly dation at different spatial biodiversity (e.g. species hydrological response (e.g. extinctions) peak flow) productive ecosystems and temporal scales; as such as coral reefs, manpointed out in a book groves, estuaries etc., chapter of the LUCC biogeochemical response climate response (e.g. (e.g. nutrient fluxes) temperature change) diminishing levels of fish project’s final synthesis and shellfish populations, book (Chhabra et al., human health response (e.g. reduced biodiversity, an forthcoming). disease incidence) increase in the delivery of Agricultural intensinutrients and pollutants fication has resulted in direct and indirect Figure: Spider diagram illustrating hypothetical trade-offs between ecosystems to the coastal area, and impacts on ecosystem goods and ecosystem responses before (top) and after (bottom) land-use change increased risk from natu(DeFries, Asner and Houghton, 2004; DeFries, Foley and Asner, 2004). ral hazards. conditions at the local No globally valid scale, and climate change statement is possible yet about an aggregated, overall or genat regional and global scales. Impacts of land-use/cover eralized impact of land-use/cover change upon ecosystems changes can be analysed by assessing changes in patterns and and people in a coupled manner. This is mainly due to the processes in ecosystems, e.g. by calculating human approprimultiplicity of impacts in terms of various types, time scales, ation of net primary production (HANPP), changes in biohierarchical scales, feedbacks or repercussions as well as facmass standing crop, carbon stocks etc. New empirical studies tors involved. In an effort, however, to aid and inform decihave also shown that human-induced reduction in biomass sions that balance human needs for ecosystem goods while energy availability of ecosystems results in species loss. Biomitigating unintended ecosystem responses, the consideradiversity losses currently driven by habitat destruction assotion and quantification of (hypothetical) trade-offs seems ciated with land-cover change will be further exacerbated by crucial (see figure). future climate change, resulting in huge economic and societal consequences. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website The widespread usage of biocides for increased agricultural output growth contributing to food security in most regions at www.ihdp.org/updatelucc05/references.htm 12 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change SCIENCE AND POLICY
LINKING LAND-USE/COVER CHANGE SCIENCE AND POLICY B Y R OBIN S. R EID, X U J IANCHU AND H ELMUT G EIST INTRODUCTION
The need to balance human well-being and environmental sustainability involves adjusting the way we use ecosystem goods and services produced by the land. Land use is at the center of these trade-offs. A large body of policies are just a reminder that the use of land is a highly political activity, i.e., determination of land use should not be left to chance, to individual land owners or to the market alone. Prominent examples – involving policies indirectly influencing land use (e.g., fiscal policies, property law), relating to land-based activities (e.g., agricultural policy), and policies affecting land use directly (e.g., nature conservation) – originate from all biomes of the earth. In lowland Amazonia, developing road infrastructure within the framework of large-scale development programs has created a potent avenue for deforestation. On humid forest uplands in Southeast Asia, land use has changed rapidly in response to sectoral and land policies regulating resettlement, land tenure and agricultural prices. In drylands of East Africa and Central Asia, implementation of policy that privatizes land ownership in rangelands rapidly causes landscape fragmentation and expansion of cultivation and fencing. US and European macroeconomic policies, designed to protect high intensity crop production in the temperate zone, create trade barriers on free importation of food products, affecting the competitive ability of smallholder farmers in tropical countries, which affects the way farmers choose to use their land. Land-use/cover change science has matured into a highly credible source of clear, salient and useful information for those interested and involved in policy-making. This lies at the heart of a book chapter of the project’s final synthesis book, which expands on examples of the interactions between landuse science and policy by first describing the key, credible lessons from the science of land-use/cover change that may be relevant to policy; then, exploring examples where landchange science is already part of the policy process; and, finally, suggesting how the links between science and policy can be improved. Integration of science and policy is mainly addressed by a conceptual framework that addresses key characters of a credible, salient and legitimate science that successfully links with policy making (Reid et al., forthcoming).
port, and taxation) are some of the most important causes of land change, and thus are one key held by policy makers to influence either sustainable or unsustainable paths of land use across the globe. Lifestyle choices and consumption patterns of material and non-material goods are also affecting land-use choices all over the world (e.g., choices away from farming to construction of leisure homes in pleasant but ecologically fragile ecosystems). Policy makers may be more successful if they look for and address the underlying causes of land-use change (institution, policies, population) rather than only the proximate causes (logging, cultivation), and if they take into consideration multiple and often interacting causes (see figure). Other lessons are more relevant for specific land uses. For example, in rangelands in arid or semi-arid tropical and subtropical zones, mobility is critical to sustainable land use, and policies that support mobile lifestyles will curb overgrazing (or over-utilization of resources). Pastoral land use, all over the world, is shrinking as farmers push further into marginal lands and herders settle more often around infrastructure for water, health and education. Access to large and diverse land-
KEY PUBLIC POLICY LESSONS
A few policy lessons can be distilled from what has been learned in the framework of the LUCC project. These are meant to be key messages to land managers and political leaders, hopefully suitable to promote sustainable land use. For example, land change scientists show a limited suite of recurrent forces cause land change around the globe. This implies that causes are not infinite and that policy makers can promote sustainable land uses by focusing on – and weakening or reversing – particular “perverse” causes. Misguided sectoral and macro-economic government policies (e.g., price controls on agricultural inputs and outputs, infrastructure sup-
Figure: Conceptual model showing where, during the processes of land-use change, national-level policy is likely to have the most impacts on land use (in red) or where intervention will be more difficult (yellow). Local policy will more easily impact the proximate causes of change; however, unless the underlying causes are addressed at the same time, local action may not be sustainable. IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 13
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change SCIENCE AND POLICY
scapes is critical to maintaining productivity of livestock and reducing vulnerability of pastoral families, particularly during drought. Recent privatization and sale of pieces of pastoral rangelands by pastoral peoples has been aptly termed ‘selling wealth to buy poverty’. In other agricultural systems, shifting cultivators and mountain farmers use mobility as a strategy to access resources over time. Policies need to provide mobile services to mobile communities to allow them good health care and educational opportunities while they move livestock to seasonal pastures. Specific ‘entry points’ exist where revised or new policies can improve land-use practices, particularly to weaken positive feedbacks that accelerate land degradation (see figure). For example, policy on humid forests could intervene to weaken some of the amplifying feedbacks linked to forest decline by revising “deforestation policies” or generating new policy (much deforestation is caused by poor governance and perverse subsidies like tax-breaks and low-interest loans that encourage farmers or land speculators to convert forests). Some of these policy instruments are easier for policy makers to manipulate than others (tax breaks, loans), and thus are the first places for policy action. Policy can also be targeted to strengthen negative feedbacks that slow the changes having the most negative impacts on ecosystem goods and services (see figure). For example, good communication of the location of adverse impacts of land-use changes to policy makers can allow them to react in a timely manner to particularly fast or unexpected changes, or to start a protracted policy discussion in anticipation of future changes. The keys here are communication of information in a way that is useful to policy makers, as well as their early and continuous engagement during the process of scientific analysis. It is not uncommon that there can be delicate tip points between sustainable trajectories and those that cause degradation, as demonstrated by various local scale case studies of land change. This implies that scientists need to help monitor the effects of policy instruments, so that unexpected effects can be countered before degradation starts or becomes too severe. SUCCESSES, FAILURES, AND WAYS FORWARD TO IMPROVE
Producing credible scientific results is only one prerequisite for establishing strong links between science and policy. Successful links usually require scientists to listen to what is needed in policy making, to create new scientific designs and data that address these needs, and to actively engage stakeholders with different viewpoints. Clearly, the different worldviews of
researchers and policy makers create a cultural gap preventing adequate use of research and adequate understanding of the needs of policy makers (the groups have contrasting values and expectations and are rewarded for different behaviours). A better understanding of the policy development process may provide scientists with an appreciation of places where they may engage and impact the process. For example, participatory approaches and pilot demonstrations of solutions are particularly effective, and increase the legitimacy of science, while, in contrast, non-participatory approaches can be quite ineffective. Land-use change science has had some successes and some failures in influencing policy. The key is for scientists to link their work to social/political processes (e.g., in the form of assessments such as the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, with significant input from LUCC researchers) and use this linkage to set more ‘salient’ research priorities that address issues of concern to policy makers and other stakeholders. For example, in the discussion of science and policy, a focus beyond scientists and policy makers is needed, including the viewpoints of the land users themselves throughout the process. Once scientists listen to questions posed by policy makers and land users, they will be able to frame salient, appropriate and useful policy research questions. They will then be able to design their research to collect the most effective data to address the policy problem. Priority problems in land use often occur at broad scales across landscapes and regions. This creates a difficulty in policy, because, particularly in developing countries, there are few institutions that naturally operate at these scales: many function locally or internationally, but not in the ‘missing middle’. In general, collective action is more difficult when more people or institutions are involved, are in different locations, and hold different worldviews. Much of global land-change science has improved our understanding of connections between land use and the environment. Some of the land-change science at the local and national levels now focuses further along, on how big the problem is for different stakeholders, what to do about it (mitigation options) and how to monitor progress on addressing the problem. Research is likely to have the most impact if it develops replicable and credible indicators for use in monitoring and enforcement. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatelucc05/references.htm
FRONTIER IN LAND-USE/COVER CHANGE RESEARCH BY THE SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE LUCC PROJECT At the end of a ten year research project, the list of new issues to be investigated is often longer than the list of research findings. The objective of this article is to highlight some of the important issues at the frontier of land-use/cover change research. The following sample of topics, which is far from being an exhaustive list, is a condensed summary of a brain14 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
storming session of the Scientific Steering Committee of LUCC, held in spring 2004. UNDERSTANDING LAND-USE TRANSITIONS
Urbanization and migrations are likely to play an ever dominant role in shaping new land uses, further disconnecting
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change FUTURE RESEARCH
spaces of consumption and production worldwide. Migration is generally thought to have a stronger impact on land-use change than mortality and fertility, at least at time scales of a few decades. In future population-environment studies, micro- to macro-scale demographic variables should be studied in context rather than as exogenous driving forces. The development of megacities tends to dominate discussions on urbanization (e.g., urban lifestyle impacts/influences on remote rural areas), but networks of secondary cities and periurban areas are also crucial in land-use change as urban-rural linkages are stronger at that level. Globalization and “export” of land use via international trade also deserves more attention – e.g., in the case of booming economies such as China that pulls products from the entire world with non-negligible land-use impacts in sometimes distant countries. In the same vein, future land-use research needs to better consider constraints such as capital availability, technology, policies, and macro-economic shocks, and the cross-scale interactions between these factors. The expansion of agricultural frontiers remains an important research topic, e.g. in the Amazon, but this expansion is increasingly linked to urbanization and globalization in ways that remain poorly understood. Managing transitions towards sustainable land use, which is a normative exercise, needs to address these global-local interplays. Transitions are sensitive towards global as well as local and regional constraints and opportunities. Locally, engagement and communication with stakeholders in regions where teams conduct land-use change research need to be more systematic. This will often require, first, establishing interfaces with other disciplines that will be relevant to assess impacts of land-use/cover change, and, second, considering multiple scales of governance structures, institutions, conflicts and interactions between multiple agents. VULNERABILITY IN THE FACE OF LAND-USE CHANGE
There are many research opportunities to understand vulnerability in a multidimensional, dynamic way. This research needs to couple social as well as ecological vulnerability and integrate the multiple impacts of land-use change on societies and ecosystems – e.g., on social and economic well-being, food security, health but also water resources, the carbon cycle, and ecosystem functioning. The linkage between land and water use needs to be better understood and incorporated into vulnerability studies. Water impacts on land-use change are an important issue (e.g., irrigation farming in drylands). One of the most important trade-offs facing many societies engaged in intensive agriculture is between water quality and agricultural development. Likewise, new research requires an integration of emerging results from biocomplexity research on patterns of biodiversity at multiple scales, with strong linkages to research on conservation biology and livelihood security. While land-use change research has tended to focus on socalled “slow variables”, a big challenge is to better integrate extreme events of all kinds: climate events (e.g., at ENSO-type
time scales, decadal scale, etc.) but also human events (e.g., wars, conflicts, economic shocks). These “fast variables” often determine the resilience and collapse of systems. Surprises happen but the integration of surprises into land-use change research has not yet happened to the extent required. The concept of resilience establishes the link between risks from extreme events and social well-being. LONG-TERM SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
The global change scientific community increasingly studies coupled human-environment systems on time scales of hundreds to thousands of years. Land-use change researchers have much to offer to long-term social-ecological research. At these long-time scales, there is a strong footprint of agriculture which needs to be better explored and quantified, including impacts on biogeochemical cycles. TOOLS AND METHODS
Prominent among new tools and methods is integrated modelling. Some of the next steps needed to improve models include better integration of social and biophysical drivers, better modelling of decision making by agents, an improved ability to model lag times and thresholds in land-use decisions, and multisource data integration (e.g., remote sensing with census and household survey data). Integrated modelling work should rely on global, regional and local scale digital databases, not just on land-cover classes, but also on land management (fertilization, irrigation, etc.), with more participatory open GIS and data sharing. Future scenarios of land-use change should be formulated in the context of multiple stakeholders. Agent-based models increasingly become a tool of choice for understanding decision making, even though they should not be viewed as a panacea. Spatially explicit, multi-agent simulation models allow simulating surprises and evaluating their potential impacts on the landscape. Much has been learnt on the causes of land-use change through meta-analyses of large numbers of case studies. A methodological challenge is to move beyond a posteriori meta-analyses of results, but rather conduct comparative analyses of case studies by analyzing original data from these case studies. This requires standardized data collection descriptions that allow comparisons, while still recognizing the need to fine-tune data collections to the most relevant processes in specific localities. While a standardized landcover classification system has now been produced, an equivalent scheme for land use is crucially needed. More generally, land-use change researchers will have to further diversify their portfolio of analytic methods: not just multiple regressions but also narratives, system and agentbased approaches, network analysis, etc. Many of these issues will be taken up by the new IGBPIHDP Global Land Project (GLP). R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatelucc05/references.htm
IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 15
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change AUTHORS
LIST OF AUTHORS A RTICLES PP. 1 - 17 F RÉDÉRIC ACHARD is a Scientist at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in Ispra, Italy;
[email protected]; www-gvm.jrc.it. J OSEPH A LCAMO is Professor of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of Kassel, Germany, and member of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee
[email protected]; www.usf.uni-kassel.de. D IÓGENES A LVES is Senior Researcher at the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Sao José dos Campos, Brazil, and member of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee;
[email protected]; www.dpi.inpe.br/dalves/Diogenes. A DEMOLA B RAIMOH is Post-doctoral Researcher at the United Nations University in Tokyo, Japan; braimoh@ ias.unu.edu; www.ias.unu.edu. G ERALD B USCH is Senior Researcher and Consultant in Environmental Sciences at the University of Kassel, Germany;
[email protected]; www.usf.uni-kassel.de. A BHA C HHABRA is Post-doctoral Researcher at the Space Applications Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation, Ahmedabad, India, and member of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee;
[email protected]; www.isro.org. RUTH D E F RIES is Professor of Geography at the University of Maryland, USA;
[email protected]; www.glue.umd. edu/~rdefries/homepage. H ELMUT G EIST is Executive Director of the LUCC project at the International Project Office of the Catholic University of Louvain in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; geist@ geog.ucl. ac.be; www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC. L ISA G RAUMLICH is Executive Director of the Big Sky Institute, Montana State University, USA, and Vice Chair of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee;
[email protected]; www.bsi.montana.edu. H ELMUT H ABERL is Professor of Social Ecology at Klagenfurt University, Vienna, Austria;
[email protected]; www.iff.ac.at. K EES K LEIN G OLDEWIJK is Senior Scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, The Netherlands;
[email protected]; www.mnp.nl. K ASPER KOK is Science Officer of the LUCC Focus 3 Office at Wageningen University, The Netherlands; Kasper.Kok@ wur.nl; www.lucc.nl. E RIC L AMBIN is Professor of Geography at the Catholic University of Louvain in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, and Chair 16 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee; lambin@ geog.ucl.ac.be; www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC. W ILLIAM M C C ONNELL is Assistant Professor of Geography at Michigan State University, USA, and Science Officer of the LUCC Focus 1 Office;
[email protected]; www.indiana.edu/~act. N AVIN R AMANKUT TY is an Assistant Scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA, and member of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee;
[email protected]; www.sage.wisc.edu. R OBIN S. R EID is Principal Systems Ecologist and Leader of the Sustaining Lands and Livelihoods Programme at the International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, and member of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee;
[email protected]; http://lucideastafrica.org. R ONALD R. R INDFUSS is the Robert Paul Ziff Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Fellow of the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, and member of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee;
[email protected]; www.cpc.unc.edu. B. L. T URNER II is Milton P. and Alice C. Higgins Professor of Environment and Society at Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA;
[email protected]; www.clarku.edu/departments/geography/faculty/turner.cfm. T OM V ELDKAMP is Professor of Soil Science at Wageningen University, The Netherlands, Leader of LUCC Focus 3, and member of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee;
[email protected]; www.wau.nl. P ETER V ERBURG is Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences at Wageningen University, The Netherlands;
[email protected]; http://www.cluemodel.nl. J IANCHU X U is Professor of Ethnobotany and Programme Manager at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, and member of the LUCC Scientific Steering Committee;
[email protected]; www.icimod.org.
In Memoriam:
Anver Ghazi Head of the European Commission Research Unit on Climate Change and Natural Hazards
† 25 July 2005
Core Projects GECHS/LOICZ
HUMAN SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE An international workshop on Human Security and Climate Change was held in Oslo, Norway from June 21-23, 2005. This GECHS-sponsored workshop brought together research communities that are addressing human security from three distinct perspectives. One perspective, based on a state-centered interpretation of human security, explored whether climate change will lead to increased conflict and international migration. A second perspective used a broad interpretation of human security and considered how climate change might influence vulnerability and adaptive capacity, and hence human security. A third perspective focused on legal and philosophical aspects of climate change, and considered whether climate change could be framed as an issue of national security. The workshop served as a milestone for bringing together these diverse points of view and expanding the debate about what climate change means for human security. Taking advantage of the long Nordic Mid-summer night, the 65 participants from over 20 countries were able to share research findings, experiences, and perspectives. It was
clear at the end of the event that climate change is likely to influence multiple aspects of human security. Although its impacts on individuals, communities, and regions may trigger both conflict as well as cooperation, climate change represents a formidable challenge to human security in the 21st Century. The workshop was organized in collaboration with GECHS by the Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO) and Center for International Climate and Environment Research- Oslo (CICERO), with generous funding from the Research Council of Norway, UNEP’s Department of Early Warning and Assessment, and the Norwegian Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Papers presented at the workshop are available on the meeting website: www.cicero.uio.no/humsec. K AREN O’B RIEN is Chair of the Global Environmental Change and Human Security Project (GECHS), based at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Norway;
[email protected]; www.gehs.org
COASTS AND COASTAL PEOPLE – SCENARIOS OF CHANGES AND RESPONSES The LOICZ Inaugural Open Science Meeting 2005 ushed LOICZ’s second decade as a global change program. Building on its strengths in examining material fluxes from catchments to coast, the Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) project will now embark on a broadly expanded research framework focusing on the interactions between humans, ecosystems and material fluxes as drivers of coastal change. Over the three days of the meeting, which took place in Egmond aan Zee (The Netherlands) from 27 to 29 June 2005, a community of some 270 coastal scientists and managers representing 52 countries engaged in discussion about these interactions and their trajectories of change, including ways to approach sustainable coastal scenarios. Two plenary addresses each day provided an overview of the challenges facing the global environmental community. These presentations exemplified the broad domain of research themes that are encompassed within the LOICZ Science Plan and Implementation Strategy (SPIS) and addressed some of the science
challenges that face the next 10 years of LOICZ activity. Plenary addresses were followed by oral presentation sessions where a keynote talk and paper presentations provided insight of future research needs and work in progress in regard to the research themes covered by the LOICZ Science plan. The meeting also importantly included afternoon workshops to develop research proposals and action plans targeting knowledge products. The meeting provided opportunity for researchers and practitioners to forge new linkages, or renewed ties, with colleagues to pursue LOICZ related activities. Beyond the Open Science Meeting, we hope that participants will have been encouraged to become, or remain, active in the LOICZ network. The success of LOICZ as a platform for global change research greatly depends on the individual and collective strength of its community members to see the program through to fruition. M ARTIN L E T ISSIER is Deputy Executive Officer of the LOICZ Project, Texel, The Netherlands;
[email protected]; www.loicz.org
IHDP (International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change) and APN (Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research) announce the Fifth International Human Dimensions Workshop – Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Water, Trade, and the Environment, held in October 2006, in Chiang Mai, Thailand. We invite academic researchers who are in the early phases of their careers, policy makers, and practitioners dealing with issues of water, trade, and environment, and who are based in Asia, Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin America, to apply to attend this workshop. Application details will be circulated in October 2005. Please visit our webpage www.ihdp.org for more details or contact Maarit Thiem at
[email protected]
IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 17
In Brief NEWS
IN BRIEF H IROKI H ASHIZUME is the new Executive Director of APN (Asia-Pacific Network on Global Change Research). He is an engineer and environmental scientist with a vast field of expertise who has held key positions with the Japanese Environment Agency, the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Health. H OLM T IESSEN is the new Executive Director of IAI (Inter-American Institute of Global Change Research). He is a molecular biologist and soil scientist and was awarded the Alexander von Humboldt Science Prize in 1998. M ARTIN R ICE has been appointed as ESSP Coordinator by the Earth System Science Partnership (consisting of DIVERSITAS, IGBP, IHDP and WCRP). Martin Rice will be based at the DIVERSITAS Secretariat in Paris. YANYU T IAN , Scientific Secretary of the Chinese National Committee on IHDP, has been with the IHDP Secretariat in Bonn, Germany, since July 2005. As a visiting scientist, his current work is to assist the team with its preparations for the 6th Open Meeting of the IHDP research community. As a geographer, his main field of research is historical land-use and land-cover change.
Gerhard Petschel-Held * 31.1.1964 † 9.9.2005 His death leaves us shocked and deeply shaken. We got to know him as an excellent scientist and outstanding personality. His early death is a great loss to the entire community working on an interdisciplinary understanding of human-environment interactions.
Yanyu Tian
SUNITA NAHRAIN and the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) have been awarded this years’ Stockholm Water Prize. Ms. Nahrain is a dynamic advocate for water, environment, human rights, democracy and health. Among other successes, CSE has revived the idea of harvesting rainwater as a means to manage water sources locally, which could become a starting point for the removal of rural poverty in many parts of the world. The African Network on Global Environmental Change Planning Workshop is held from 22 to 24 September
Call for Proposals under the CAPaBLE Programme A: Capacity Building Proposals for funding from April 2006 that are related to Global Change and Sustainable Development. Deadline for submission: 26th October 2005 B: Comprehensive Research Proposals for Capacity Enhancement, with a specific focus on Climate Change and its effects on Water and Food Security as related to Sustainable Development. Deadline for submission: 9th November 2005. Full details can be obtained on the APN website at: www.apn-gcr.org/en/CAPaBLE_callforproposals/ capable_cfp05.htm
18 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
in Nairobi, Kenya, co-organized by the Pan-African START (Systems for Analysis, Research and Training) Secretariat. The purpose of the workshop is to gauge interests and preferences of the African scientific and policy communities as to the nature of a regional networking organization that could best serve the needs of the two communities in support of global change science and capacity development in Africa. Network structures and processes, funding strategies and long-term international support are among the issues looked into. Two START/PACOM (Pan-African Regional Committee for START) calls for proposals for African scientists and doctoral fellowships, respectively, have just ended.
http://portal.pik-potsdam.de/gerhard/
NEW BOOKS Our Earth’s Changing Land An Encyclopedia of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change (Two Volumes) By Helmut Geist Scientists predict that the environment over the next 100 years will be threatened by severe challenges—the loss of biodiversity, expected changes in worldwide climate, and decreasing amounts of arable land and potable water for an exploding human population. All of these will greatly impact how the earth will be able to support life in the future. And at the center of these global environmental changes are developments in land use. Over the last 300 years, and in particular the last 50 years, the earth’s land has been altered drastically as a result of increasing industrialization and urbanization worldwide, as well as by changes in agricultural techniques in lands under cultivation. These developments raise troubling questions about out future: How will these changes affect the sustainability of certain types of land use? How will they impinge upon critical regions, like rainforests and
Calendar/Publications NEW BOOKS
deserts? Will the earth be able to provide for the basic human needs of food, shelter, and water? Greenwood Publishing, 2005 (forthcoming), List Price: £125.00, ISBN 0-313-32704-1, Order by email:
[email protected]
working at the edge of agriculture, land use and greenhouse gas emissions control. Springer, forthcoming 2005, approx. 350 p. hardcover, special prepublication discount: € 68; Environment & Policy, Volume 46, ISBN 1-4020-4063-6;
Seeing the Forest and the Trees Human-Environment Interactions in Forest Ecosystems
Special Journal on Consumption and Industrial Ecology
Edited by Emilio F. Moran and Elinor Ostrom Throughout much of human history, changes to forest ecosystems have come about through natural climatic changes occurring over long periods of time. But scientists now find changes in forest cover dramatically accelerated by such human activities as large-scale agriculture, the building of dams and roads, and the growth of cities with vast areas of asphalt. Changes that once took centuries now take only decades. ‘Seeing the Forest and the Trees’ examines changes in land cover and land use in forested regions as major contributors to global environmental change. It investigates why some forested areas thrive even in the presence of high human densities and activity while others decline and disappear. The book brings together findings from an ongoing, large-scale, multidisciplinary research project undertaken by anthropologists, geographers, economists, sociologists, political scientists, environmental scientists, and biologists in more than twelve countries at over eighty locations. After addressing theory and methodology, including chapters on satellite remote sensing, geographic information systems, and modeling of land-cover change, the book presents case studies that compare data across sites and across temporal and spatial scales. It contributes to Human Dimensions in Global Change research and proposes new directions for this area of study. MIT Press, July 2005, 504 pages, 59 illus., 8 color , $83.00/£53.95 (cloth), ISBN 0-262-13453-5
The Journal of Industrial Ecology, a peer-reviewed, international quarterly published by MIT Press and owned by Yale University, has recently published a special issue on Consumption and Industrial Ecology. The entire special issue is available on the web at http://mitpress.mit.edu/JIE/consumption for download at no charge. This issue breaks new ground in providing systematic and quantitative assessments of the impact of consumption – what we buy and what we use – on the environment. The articles in the special issue address the relationship between consumption and factors such as diet change, time use, house size, worktime reduction, product life spans, quality of life, NGO advocacy strategies, and the rebound effect, as well as the environmental impact of consumption at the household, city and national levels in countries around the world.
MEETING CALENDAR 2–6 October – Perth, Scotland, UK Global Change in Mountain Regions http://www.mountain.conf.uhi.ac.uk 9–13 October – Bonn, Germany 6th Open Meeting of the Global Environmental Change Research Community “New Challenges for the 21st Century: Global Environmental Change, Globalization and International Security” http://openmeeting.homelinux.org 24–27 October – Kolding, Denmark Oceans Past: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the History of Marine Animal Populations http://www.marbef.org
Agriculture and Climate Beyond 2015 A New Perspective on Future Land Use Patterns
25–29 October – Kusadasi, Turkey 7th Int. Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Environment http://www.medcoast.org.tr
Edited by Floor Brouwer and Bruce A. McCarl
28–29 October – Farnham, UK Sustainable Innovation 05: Global ‘State of the Art’ in Sustainable Product/Service Development and Design http://www.cfsd.org.uk/events/tspd10/index.html
Interactions between agriculture, climate and patterns of land use are complex. Major changes in agriculture, and land use patterns are foreseen in the next couple of decades in response to shifts in climate, greenhouse gas management initiatives, population growth and other forces. This timely new book explores emerging perspectives on future land use patterns, exploring linkages between agriculture and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will be widely read by academic, researchers and policy makers with an interest in agriculture, land use and resource economics. The book will appeal to those researching and
9–12 November – Oaxaca, Mexico Integrating biodiversity science for human well-being http://www.diversitas-osc1.org 13–17 November – Melbourne, Australia Greenhouse 2005: Action on Climate Control http://www.greenhouse2005.com 2–3 December – Berlin, Germany
International Organizations and Global Environmental Change http://www.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2005/ IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005 | 19
Addresses
CONTACT ADDRESSES IHDP SECRETARIAT
JOINT ESSP PROJECTS GECAFS
• IHDP Secretariat:
Barbara Göbel, Executive Director Walter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-739050 Fax: +49-228-739054
[email protected] www.ihdp.org
• Global Environmental Change and Food Systems
IHDP CORE PROJECTS GECHS • Global Environmental Change and Human Security
c/o Karen O'Brien, Chair GECHS International Project Office Department of Sociology and Human Geography University of Oslo, Norway
[email protected] www.gechs.org
IDGEC • Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
c/o Heike Schröder, Executive Officer IDGEC International Project Office, Bren School of Env. Science and Management, University of California at Santa Barbara, CA, USA
[email protected] http://fiesta.bren.edu/~idgec/
IT • Industrial Transformation
c/o Anna J. Wieczorek, Executive Officer IT International Project Office Institute of Environmental Studies University of Asterdam The Netherlands
[email protected] http://130.37.129.100/ivm/research/ ihdp-it/index.html LOICZ • Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone
c/o Hartwig Kremer and Martin Le Tissier, Excecutive Officers, LOICZ International Project Office Den Burg, Texel, Netherlands
[email protected] www.loicz.org
LUCC • Land-Use and Land-Cover Change
c/o Helmut Geist, Executive Officer LUCC International Project Office University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
[email protected] www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC
c/o John Ingram, Executive Officer GECAFS International Project Office, NERC-Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
[email protected] www.gecafs.org
GCP • Global Carbon Project
c/o Pep Canadell Executive Officer GCP International Project Office, CSIRO Canberra, Australia
[email protected] www.globalcarbonproject.org Tsukuba Office c/o Penelope Canan National Institute of Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan
[email protected]
GWSP • Global Water Systems Project
c/o Eric Craswell, Executive Officer International Project Office GWSP Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Germany
[email protected] www.gwsp.org
IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC) Chair • Coleen Heather Vogel
Dept. of Geography & Env. Studies University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, South Africa
[email protected] Vice Chair • Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez
UC-Mexus, University of California Riverside, CA, USA
[email protected]
• Katrina Brown School of Development Studies University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
[email protected]
• Geoffrey Dabelko Environmental Change and Security Project (ECSP) Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington D.C., USA
[email protected]
• Carl Folke Centre for Research on Natural Resources and the Environment (CNM) CNM, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden
[email protected]
20 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 3/2005
• Roberto Guimarães United Nations Division for SocialPolicy and Development New York, NY, USA
[email protected]
• Gernot Klepper Kiel Institute of World Economics Kiel, Germany
[email protected]
• Tatiana Kluvankova-Oravska Institute for Forecasting Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava, Slovak Republic
[email protected]
• Sander van der Leeuw Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
[email protected]
• Elinor Ostrom Center for the Study of Institutions, Population & Environmental Change Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA
[email protected]
• Xizhe Peng Institute of Population Research Fudan University Shanghai, P.R. China
[email protected]
START (alternating) • Sulochana Gadgil
Indian Institute of Science & Oceanic Sciences Bangalore, India
[email protected]
• Graeme I. Pearman CSIRO Atmospheric Research Aspendale, Australia
[email protected]
WCRP • Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research Bremerhaven, Germany
[email protected]
GECHS • Karen O’Brien
Institute for Sociology & Human Geography University of Oslo, Norway
[email protected] IDGEC • Oran R. Young
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA, USA
[email protected]
IT • Frans Berkhout
• Hebe Vessuri Department of Science Studies, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Caracas, Venezuela
[email protected]
• Paul L.G. Vlek Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
[email protected]
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
ICSU
• Thomas Rosswall Executive Director ICSU Paris, France
[email protected]
ISSC
• Lourdes Arizpe Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) Cuernavaca, Mexico
[email protected]
Director, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
[email protected] LOICZ • Liana Talaue McManus
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA
[email protected]
LUCC • Eric Lambin
Dept. of Geography University of Louvain Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
[email protected]
URBANIZATION • Karen Seto
Dept. of Ecological & Environmental Sciences Stanford University, USA
[email protected]
GLP (Global Land Project)
DIVERSITAS • Michel Loreau
• Richard Aspinall & Dennis Ojima
École Normale Superieure Laboratoire d'Écologie Paris, France
[email protected]
Interim Co-Chairs
[email protected] [email protected] www.glp.colostate.edu
IGBP • Guy Brasseur
Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology Hamburg, Germany
[email protected] Printed on 100% recycled paper
